The applicant had been convicted in 1990 of conspiracy to cause explosions. He had been arrested by means of an unlawful eviction from Zimbabwe, and his appeal had been successful after ten years in prison. He now appealed against a refusal to award him compensation for his imprisonment, and said that the provision of ex gratia payments only infringed his human rights.
Held: The Appeal had succeeded not for any doubt about the accuracy of the finding, but rather as to the propriety of the conviction, but certainty of guilt cannot displace the essence abuse of process, namely the degradation of the lawful administration of justice. That the appeal succeeded was an exercise of discretion, not a revelation of a miscarriage of justice. The Home Secretary was not an independent tribunal for making such a decision. However the Secretary merely applied the findings of the court, and did not himself have discretion. There had been no legitimate expectation created, and nor was there any inconsistency between the allowing of the appeal, and the refusal of compensation. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Scott Baker
Citations:
Times 27-Feb-2002, Gazette 28-Mar-2002, 2002] EWHC 230 (Admin), [2002] 1 WLR 1857
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 133, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 14(6), European Convention on Human Rights Seventh Protocol Art 3
Citing:
Appealed to – Regina (on the Application of Mullen) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Dec-2002
The applicant had been unlawfully taken from Zimbabwe, then tried and sentenced in the UK. His conviction was set aside as unsafe, but he had been refused damages. He appealed.
Held: There was no substantial criticism of the trial itself, but . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of Mullen) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Dec-2002
The applicant had been unlawfully taken from Zimbabwe, then tried and sentenced in the UK. His conviction was set aside as unsafe, but he had been refused damages. He appealed.
Held: There was no substantial criticism of the trial itself, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Damages, Human Rights
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167664