The claimant sought compensation for his imprisonment after the overturning of his conviction, on the basis that evidence had emerged which undermined the conviction.
Held: Such a claim could not succeed where the reason for the non-use of the evidence was the incompetence or otherwise of the defence lawyers. Existing law had not decided just what constituted new evidence as regards who any evidence was unknown to. A failure by a defence team to recognise the significance of a particular item of evidence was not an example to fall with Lord Bingham’s categories in Mullen of something going seriously wrong, unless that failure was so bad as to be egregious.
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Lloyd
[2009] EWCA Civ 1291, Times 07-Dec-2009, [2010] QB 460, [2010] 3 WLR 63, [2010] 1 Cr App R 25
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 2009
. .
See Also – Regina v Adams CACD 12-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1993 for murder. . .
Cited – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
Cited by:
Appeal From – Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.381578
