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 counsel and the judge. His case had been overturned because he had been warned to expect a sentence more severe than could have been imposed.
Held: A balance was to be found when compensating a defendant who was found not guilty or had his conviction overturned. A claim dould not be made here under s133, since it was not clear that there had been any miscarriage of justice. A judge or resident magistrate is a public servant, which is true, and to say that each is a member of the court to which he or she belongs. However at the time of the ministerial statements upon which the claim was made, a magistrate would not be seen as a member of a public authority, and therefore no claim for compensation would lie.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Citations:
[2004] UKHL 17, Times 30-Apr-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1289
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 14(1)(a), Criminal Justice Act 1988 133(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 14(6)
Jurisdiction:
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Appeal from – McFarland, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 28-Jun-2002
. .
Cited – Bateman and Howse, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-May-1994
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 . .
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 – 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 – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Garner and Others Admn 19-Apr-1999
In exceptional cases, where judicial misconduct had been shown to have contributed to a wrongful conviction, it was proper for the Home Secretary to consider compensation for the defendant, and a policy excluding that as a possibility is unlawful. . .
Cited – Daghir and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 13-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Regina (Conlon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 11-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – Campbell v HM Advocate 1941
A bribe accepted by a member of a licensing court, and the question was whether such a court was a ‘public body’ within the meaning of section 7 as extended by section 4(2) of the 1916 Act.
Held: The court were doubtful whether a licensing . .
Cited – Auckland Harbour Board v The King PC 1924
The making of ex gratia payments is lawful if, but not unless, there is Parliamentary authority for the disbursements: ‘It has been a principle of the British constitution now for more than two centuries . . that no money can be taken out of the . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary and Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte P and Another CA 12-May-1994
The exclusion from claiming under the scheme, of victims within the same household, including sex abuse victims was not clearly unreasonable. The fact that the scheme was provided under the Crown prerogative did not exclude it from judicial review. . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex parte Lain QBD 1967
The Crown Prerogative origin of the power to make ex gratia payments does not exclude the scheme under which the payments are made from judicial review. Decisions of the Board may therefore be subject to judicial review.
Lord Parker CJ . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Harrison QBD 1988
A magistrate is not a ‘public authority’. . .
Cited by:
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 – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Cited – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196075