Hallam and Another, Regina (on The Applications of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 11 Apr 2016

The claimants had had their criminal convictions quashed, but had had claims for compensation rejected. They said that section 133(1ZA) of the 1988 Act (as amended) infringed their Human Rights by displacing the presumption of innocence.
Held: The appeals failed. The Supreme Court had decided that the presumption of innocence had been displaced in such decisions, and that decision remained binding on the Court, despite any possibly contradicting decisions in the ECHR.

Lord Dyson MR, Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Hamblen LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 355, [2016] WLR(D) 182, [2016] Crim LR 772, [2017] QB 571, [2016] 2 Cr App R 11, [2016] 3 WLR 329, UKSC 2016/0227
Bailii, WLRD, Judiciary, Judiciary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, 2018 May 08 am Video, SC 2018 08 Maay 2018 pm V, SC 2018 May 09 am Video, SC 2018 May 09 pm Video
Criminal Justice Act 1988 133(1ZA), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromHallam, 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.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.562154