The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled in favor of the UK government’s decision to deny compensation to two men, Victor Nealon and Sam Hallam, who had suffered a miscarriage of justice due to wrongful convictions. Both men spent a combined 24 years in prison before their convictions were overturned.
Nealon, convicted of attempted rape in 1996, served 17 years before new DNA evidence indicated the presence of another man’s DNA on the victim’s clothes. Hallam, convicted of murder in 2004, served over seven years before his conviction was quashed due to doubts about key evidence. Despite their exoneration, the UK government argued that compensation could only be awarded if it was proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that they were innocent, as per the amended Section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The applicants contended that this stringent requirement was in violation of Article 6 § 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, arguing that it effectively forced them to prove their innocence to receive compensation. They stated that the refusal to compensate them implied their guilt.
However, the ECHR’s grand chamber, by a 12 to 5 majority, ruled that the UK’s compensation criteria did not violate the convention. The court noted that failing to show beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had not committed an offence did not equate to a finding that they had committed the offence.
This ruling comes in the context of other high-profile cases, such as Andrew Malkinson, who also served 17 years for a crime he did not commit, resulting in an independent inquiry into the handling of the case. The debate surrounding Nealon and Hallam’s cases has reignited public discussions about the UK’s approach to compensating victims of miscarriage of justice.
For further details, you can read the original article on JURIST.