http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33045706

So verdict was found to be unsafe and released but not allowed any compensation? That seems a bit odd.

No idea, you’d need to see the judgement or get input from someone with knwoledge of that area.

Victor Nealon’s lawyer said the judgment was “wrong legally and morally” and confirmed he would appeal.

The pair asked two judges to rule that UK law is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because it wrongly restricts compensation in “miscarriage of justice” cases.

I guess it’s this restriction that’s the issue.

The Government (relatively) recently tightened the criteria against which people who were wrongly convicted of criminal offences could claim compensation for that wrongful conviction.

These two were bringing an action against that restriction claiming that it impinged on their Convention rights – their claim being that since they were wrongly convicted and spent several years in prison as a result of miscarriages of justice that they should have some compensation for those years of their life lost and the massive and ongoing impact that the wrongful convictions have had on their lives.

The High Court dismissed their claim, ruling that the Government’s revised compensation scheme does not impinge upon their Convention rights.

I think it’s because in order to get compensation they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn’t commit the offence, but in the opinion of the judges they weren’t able to do that.

His conviction was quashed in 2013 after a DNA test pointed to “an unknown male” – not Nealon – as being the likely assailant.
But in June 2014, the Ministry of Justice rejected his application on the grounds that the DNA analysis “did not show beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant did not commit the offence”.

theres some messed up logic right there!

my understanding is that currently, in order to get compensation there has to have been errors in the court case, not that the wrong outcome was reached. Which is what these two are trying to overturn.

You can see an argument for the death penalty here. If they’d been executed there’d be no one left to appeal for compensation 😉

kimbers – Member
theres some messed up logic right there!

Indeed – in your post – my guess is the Judge had access to more evidence than you do.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/31/miscarriage-justice-victims-compensation-victor-nealon

In 2014, the government introduced new legislation providing, for the first time, a statutory definition of what constitutes a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of determining eligibility for compensation. This definition now means that compensation is only paid where the new fact which led to the quashing of an applicant’s conviction shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence.

I guess the problem is the massive grey area between proving someone guilty and proving someone innocent. Under the old system someone who did commit a crime, but managed to introduce enough doubt to get their conviction quashed at appeal could have been paid millions of pounds for wrongful imprisonment. Now someone who is entirely innocent could spend years in prison and have their life ruined and get no compensation at all.

If a verdict of not proven could be returned in English law this situation might not seem as bad. I could imagine that being fuel for suspicious neighrbours and the tabloids, though.