Criminally unfair changes to compensation

Several comments on the outrageous new UK procedures. Looks like they might fail in the courts

If the home secretary's idea about capping compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice comes into force (Report, April 20), a torrent of civil suits is likely to begin. Most will be against the police forces whose officers perpetrated the miscarriages. Some will be directed at the Home Office itself. In the 70s and 80s its C3 division would not consider such cases in a proper manner, as a consequence, the the Criminal Case Review Commission was created.


The home secretary is bound by law to compensate victims of miscarriage of justice. He will claim that the law allows him to do so "as he thinks fit". However, the Criminal Justice Act of 1988, which gives him that power, was also designated by the government as ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1976. It is questionable whether Charles Clarke's capping is allowable under the restraints of the ICCP.

In many of the cases of miscarriage of justice, the Home Office has already unnecessarily prolonged the sentences of many innocent people for years - and cost the nation millions of pounds. This was almost invariably because of maladministration committed by its former C3 division. Now it seeks to cut compensation for its own failures by this capping.

For 25 years I have been closely involved in the case of a man who was "fitted up" by the police. The evil these officers did was so bad that the police force involved has apologised for their actions. The victim of these unlawful acts was a totally innocent man. He served 20 years in prison for a murder he did not do. His life was left in ruins. Prison brought on a serious heart condition - but the authorities have "lost" his medical records, so he cannot prove what treatment he had. His parents lost him to the prison authorities. But they shall receive nothing in compensation.

The truth is this: there are about 150 cases before the home secretary at the moment of cases where the system has done a terrible wrong to innocent people. No one anticipated that the legal system could possibly be as bad as that - until the CCRC produced the evidence. So there are no funds to properly compensate such people and the Home Office seeks to hide that fact, because it reflects so badly on them as much as anyone else in the system.
Peter Hill

Producer, BBC TV's Rough Justice


The home secretary seeks to align compensation for wrongful arrest with compensation for criminal injuries. The latter reflects, to a limited degree, the state's awareness of its failure to protect the victims of crime as few criminals have assets from which their victims can be compensated. Compensation for wrongful conviction is compensation by the state to those whom its own processes - police, prosecution services, courts - have wilfully harmed.

The wrongly convicted include people such as the Birmingham Six. Their wives came to me in 1976, when appeals against conviction had failed. I took up the cases of two of the men and referred the others to other firms. It was not until March 1991 that the convictions were overturned and the men were released - and 10 more years passed before compensation was finally paid. These men, and their families, were victims of gross wrongdoing by the state. That a secretary of state (whose remit is outside the legal system) should now plan to amend the law and the procedures of the appeal court, and to limit the sums payable to the state's victims, maximises the obscenity.

Ivan Geffen
Malvern, Worcs


I write as a lawyer acting for victims of crime, whether criminal injuries compensation claimants or those wrongfully convicted by the courts. Charles Clarke is seeking to duck out of the government's responsibilities under the 1966 UN international covenant on civil and political rights - article 14(6) - which requires compensation to be paid when imprisonment is due to state error or wrongdoing. The UN convention states that compensation should be paid "according to law".

A naïve person may have thought that "the law" would be the same one that applied to road or work accident victims, which allows for unlimited compensation to be paid. But if a wrongful act is committed by a private company or individual then the state allows no limit on the amount of damages that can be awarded. If the state is involved, however, the government is happy to step in to cap the limit of its liabilities. The only similarity with the criminal injuries compensation authority limit of £500,000 referred to by Clarke is that it shows that there is one rule for the state sector one rule for the private sector, which gives us a second-rate, two-tier compensation system that pours scorn on the innocent victim.

James Bell
Christian Khan solicitors


When an innocent person serves a prison sentence he or she suffers terrible losses, often including employment, home, family and mental health. Many, if not all, of these losses are irretrievable on release. Psychiatric research published in 2003 showed that wrongful conviction and imprisonment caused enduring personality change and in two-thirds resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder. We allow the state enormous power to detain and imprison people. If we want a rigorous criminal justice system it is essential that we compensate people properly for its mistakes.

The economics of this change make no sense. CCRC referred only 45 cases to the court of appeal last year, resulting in only 23 convictions being quashed. The home secretary is talking about saving only £5m a year - a drop in the ocean of crime victims. But Tony Blair announced recently that miscarriages of justice are a thing of the past. If he is correct there is no need to make this heartless change. Will he please step forward to explain?

Jane Hickman
Secretary, Criminal Appeal Lawyers Association

(Letters from here)



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)