Category: miscarriage of justice

Regina (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (Nealon) v Same [2016] EWCA Civ 355

‘Both claimants were convicted of serious criminal offences and had their initial appeals against conviction dismissed. In the first case the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the claimant’s conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which quashed it on the basis the safety of the conviction was undermined by the unsatisfactory nature of identification evidence and doubts as to whether the claimant’s alibi had been falsely made. In the second case the commission referred the claimant’s conviction for attempted rape to the Court of Appeal, which quashed it on the basis that the weakness of identification evidence and fresh DNA evidence taken from the victim’s clothing had had a substantial effect on the safety of the conviction. In both cases the Secretary of State refused the claimant compensation, under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended, on the basis that he had failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant had not committed the offence. The claimants’ claims for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decisions, on the grounds that section 133(1ZA) of the 1988 Act (inserted by section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and providing that there has been a miscarriage of justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence “if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”) was incompatible with article 6.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it infringed the presumption of innocence, were dismissed by the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division which held that (i) the court was bound by authority of the Supreme Court (and also of the Court of Appeal) to hold that article 6.2 of the Convention was not applicable to compensation decisions made under section 133 of the 1988 Act; and (ii) the statutory scheme under section 133 maintained the presumption of innocence, did not require the applicant for compensation to prove his innocence and that only if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the new fact conclusively showed his innocence was compensation to be paid. The court also refused the claimant in the second case permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review on the basis that the Secretary of State was obliged to carry out a full review of the material before him in a particular case to determine whether the claimant was innocent.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk