⚖️ Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Westminster Hall

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

The UK Parliament debated the severe inadequacies of the current miscarriage of justice compensation scheme, highlighting that victims often face insurmountable barriers to receiving fair compensation despite being exonerated. MPs discussed the case of Brian Buckle, who was wrongfully imprisoned for over five years and denied compensation, illustrating the system’s harshness. There is a strong call for urgent reforms to ensure that those wrongly convicted are fairly compensated without reversing the burden of proof. The debate underscored a consensus among MPs that the new government has a crucial opportunity to rectify these injustices and restore faith in the justice system.

Summary

  • The session focused on the issue of compensation for victims of miscarriages of justice in England and Wales, highlighting the challenges faced by those wrongfully convicted.

  • Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) emphasized that while miscarriages of justice are inevitable in any system, the current compensation scheme is overly restrictive, often leaving victims without compensation despite being exonerated.

  • The debate included the personal story of Brian Buckle, who spent over five years in prison before being acquitted, yet was denied compensation by the Ministry of Justice because he could not prove his innocence “beyond reasonable doubt”.

  • The 2014 legislative change to the compensation scheme has significantly reduced successful claims, with only 6.6% of applicants receiving compensation post-2014, compared to 45.6% before.

  • Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) noted the decline in compensation payouts and stressed the need for reform, mentioning the Law Commission’s acknowledgment of the current system’s incoherence.

  • Jim Shannon (Strangford) and others pointed out the reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused, contradicting the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.

  • The session also touched on the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and the need for its reform to better investigate and address miscarriages of justice.

  • Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) discussed high-profile cases like the Birmingham Six and the ongoing struggles faced by victims of miscarriages of justice, advocating for a return to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

  • Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) supported the need for compensation reform and stressed the importance of preventing future miscarriages through systemic improvements.

  • Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) called for urgent reform to ensure prompt and sufficient compensation that accounts for both financial and emotional damages.

  • Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) noted the government’s steps toward reform, including removing the deduction of living expenses from compensation and expanding legal aid eligibility.

  • The Minister, Alex Davies-Jones, acknowledged the devastating impact of miscarriages of justice and outlined ongoing efforts to improve the justice system, including consultations and the work of the Law Commission expected to conclude in 2026.

  • There was a strong consensus among MPs for the need to reform the compensation system to better support victims of miscarriages of justice and ensure that justice is not only served but seen to be served.

Divisiveness

The parliamentary session on miscarriage of justice compensation displayed minimal disagreement among the participants. Throughout the debate, there was a consistent consensus on the need for reform and the inadequacy of the current compensation system for victims of wrongful convictions. Multiple speakers, including Ben Lake, Andy Slaughter, Jim Shannon, Kim Johnson, Warinder Juss, Josh Babarinde, and Kieran Mullan, all expressed similar concerns about the high burden of proof required for compensation and the low success rate of compensation claims post-2014 legislative changes. For example, Ben Lake highlighted the case of his constituent, Mr. Brian Buckle, and the difficulties he faced in obtaining compensation despite being acquitted. Andy Slaughter reinforced this by stating that the system is ‘incoherent’ and that the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ requirement for proving innocence is indefensible. There were no instances of direct opposition or disagreement among the participants; instead, there was a collective call for the government to review and amend the compensation scheme based on the Law Commission’s recommendations.

The Minister, Alex Davies-Jones, also acknowledged the complexities and challenges, reiterating the government’s commitment to addressing miscarriages of justice and improving the compensation process. While she provided some statistics that might present a slightly different perspective on the success rate of applications (e.g., mentioning that 39 out of 133 applications were awarded compensation), the overall tone of her response was not oppositional but rather aimed at outlining the current efforts and future plans to address the issue. This further solidified the low level of disagreement, as the Minister’s position was one of open consideration rather than opposition to the raised concerns.

In conclusion, the session is rated 1 for disagreement, reflecting the absence of significant conflicting opinions and a shared view among participants on the urgent need for reform in miscarriage of justice compensation.