R (on the application of Nealon) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent)
Case ID: UKSC 2017/0001
Is the definition of a "miscarriage of justice" in s. 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which has the effect of restricting awards of compensation to cases in which a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence, incompatible with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) ECHR?
The appellants were convicted of serious criminal offences, but their convictions were subsequently quashed. The Secretary of State rejected their claims for compensation under s. 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the basis that it was not the case, as subsection (1ZA) of the section required, that a "new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice". The appellants sought judicial review of this decision, contending that it amounted to a breach of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6(2) ECHR. The Divisional Court dismissed their claims on the basis that (i) the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice  UKSC 18,  1 AC 48 is binding authority for the proposition that Article 6(2) does not apply to compensation decisions under s. 133, notwithstanding contrary authority of the European Court of Human Rights and (ii) even if Article 6(2) does apply, there is no incompatibility. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Divisional Court.
Secretary of State for Justice
Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Lloyd-Jones
Hearing start date
08 May 2018
Hearing finish date
09 May 2018
|08 May 2018||Morning session||Afternoon session|
|09 May 2018||Morning session||Afternoon session|