The public’s support for Andrew Malkinson, following the overturning of his rape conviction after 17 years of wrongful imprisonment, has now shifted focus towards his compensation. Since the release of the Bridgewater Four in 1997, the government has deducted the cost of board and lodging from compensation given to victims of miscarriages of justice. Essentially, innocent individuals have been forced to pay for their own incarceration. Malkinson’s dignified anger against this practice led to the government announcing its discontinuation in order to uphold fairness. While this is a positive step, there still exists a harsh compensation scheme.
This is because of a test introduced in 2014, quietly inserted into the Criminal Justice Act. Section 133 (1ZA) stipulates that compensation is only available if the new evidence or facts that led to the quashing of the conviction prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the person did not commit the crime. During the parliamentary debate on the test in 2014, the late MP Jack Dromey emphasized that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He argued that there is no valid reason for victims of miscarriages of justice to face a “beyond reasonable doubt” test. Unfortunately, Dromey’s plea fell on deaf ears, resulting in only a minuscule percentage of wrongly convicted individuals receiving compensation. Between 2017 and 2022, out of 346 applications for compensation by victims of miscarriages of justice, only 13 were approved, amounting to less than 4%. Consequently, innocent people who have spent years behind bars are left to suffer.
Appealing a conviction is an uphill battle, as the justice system is reluctant to accept its fallibility. In 2012, Sam Hallam, one of the youngest victims of a miscarriage of justice in the UK, managed to bring his case to the court of appeal after a dedicated community campaign led by Paul May and supported by actor Ray Winstone. Hallam had spent seven years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. His conviction was eventually quashed due to unreliable identification evidence and the subsequent discovery of undisclosed police material. However, despite his innocence being proven, Hallam has received no compensation due to the harsh test imposed. He has been forced to fight another legal battle and clear his name, placing an undue burden on him and his family. This treatment is inhumane and unjust.
Hallam’s case is not unique. Victor Nealon, whose rape conviction was overturned a decade ago, is in a similar situation. Both of their cases have made their way to the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which is currently examining whether the new compensation test violates the presumption of innocence. A hearing was held in Strasbourg on July 5th, and a judgment is expected in the following year.
The government has the power to end this torment and cease the suffering of individuals like Hallam and Nealon by abolishing the compensation test. Those with clearly unsafe convictions must be rightfully compensated so that they and their families can rebuild their lives. Only then can justice truly prevail. If you have any opinions on the issues discussed in this article, please feel free to submit a response of up to 300 words via email for potential publication in our letters section.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
