Putting the Jigsaw
of Justice Back Together

The Secretary of State’s Compensation Scheme

A Short History

Compensation for miscarriage of Justice cases has always been a controversial subject and the nature of the Scheme as it stands rooted in a discretionary model is almost certain to cause controversy .
To mount a successful claim under the scheme applicants must comply with Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which requires that qualifying applicants must be able to show their conviction was quashed on the basis of a newly

discovered fact . The applicant must be an out of time appellant i.e. pursued an appeal out of time or had to apply to the CCRC to get their appeals heard .
Most controversially the scheme is currently applying an effective test of innocence to qualify for compensation with the next result that many appellants who successfully quash their convictions are not going to get any compensation no matter what hardships they have had to endure as a result of a wrongful conviction .

“Jordans given permission to challenge the refusal to award compensation to Ian Lawless ”

In the Lawless case the Secretary of State is currently arguing that he is not obliged to award compensation to Ian Lawless and we seek to challenge that position . It is said that the Court of Appeal did not declare Mr Lawless’s innocence , but this ignores the facts that the evidence did or rather lack of it . The only evidence against Ian lawless was his own confessions which the Court heard were entirely false and based upon difficulties he was having at the time .

This case raises the serious concern over the restrictive way in which such cases are being interpreted by the Secretary of State relying on a formulation of innocence by Lord Steyn that innocence must be established - arguably in any event this is the case in Lawless . A more wider interpretation by Lord Bingham is to be preferred and would allow those appellants who have had something go seriously wrong at trial to be able to recover compensation . Which test is to be preferred may be answered by the Supreme Court next year when the case of Adams is considered by then .

Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice
Challenging unfair refusals