The plaintiff had been convicted of several counts of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. He had appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that he had been convicted on the basis of evidence in statement form given by witnesses from New Zealand. His appeal failed. Some time later his case was referred back to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This time his appeal succeeded on what was essentially the same ground as that which had failed before and his convictions were quashed.
Held: The plaintiffs’ appeals were dismissed. Compensation should be payable to prisoners wrongly convicted only after new facts were discovered, not where the release came after a ruling which changed the law. In this case ‘the ground of the reversal was not . . the discovery of a new or newly discovered fact, but a legal ruling on facts which had been known all along.’
Sir Thomas Bingham discussed the suggestion that the success of an appeal meant that the court felt there had been a miscarriage of justice, and said: ‘Therefore, it follows, he says, that he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice and from that it follows that he is entitled to compensation. To deny him compensation is, he argues, to undermine his acquittal and the presumption of innocence which flows from the fact that his convictions have been quashed. I am, for my part, unable to accept that argument, although I hasten to assure Mr Bateman that in doing so I have no intention whatever to undermine the effect of the quashing of his convictions. He is entitled to be treated, for all purposes, as if he had never been convicted. Nor do I wish to suggest that Mr Bateman is not the victim of what the man in the street would regard as a miscarriage of justice. He has been imprisoned for three-and-a-half years when he should not have been convicted or imprisoned at all on the second decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The man in the street would regard that as a miscarriage of justice and so would I. But that is not, in my judgment, the question. The question is whether the miscarriage of justice from which Mr Bateman has suffered is one that has the characteristics which the Act lays down as a pre-condition of the statutory right to demand compensation. That, therefore, is the question to which I now turn.’ there was no new or newly discovered fact, so that Mr Bateman could not satisfy the relevant criteria under section 133.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Farquharson, Simon Brown LJJ
Times 01-Jul-1994, (1995) 7 Admin LR 175, [1994] EWCA Civ 36, [1994] COD 504
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 133
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Bateman – Regina v Same ex parte Howse QBD 5-May-1993
Compensation for a wrongful imprisonment should include circumstances of miscarriage of justice as well as pardons. A magistrate is not a public authority. The threshold of exceptionality is high: ‘It was essentially a question for the Secretary of . .
Cited by:
Cited – In re McFarland HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was convicted, imprisoned, and then his conviction was overturned. He sought compensation. He had pleaded guilty after being told by counsel to expect an adverse direction from the magistrate, following a meeting in private between . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 30-Jan-2019
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Prisons
Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.86900
