News

Supreme Court decision on scope of "miscarriage of justice" compensation
11 May 2011

In R (Adams) v Justice Secretary [2011] UKSC 18, Robin Tam QC appeared with James Strachan for the Secretary of State before a 9-member panel of the Supreme Court, when successfully resisting an appeal in which the court has finally had to resolve the meaning of the term "miscarriage of justice" in relation to the payment of statutory compensation, which was left undecided by the earlier decision of the House of Lords in R (Mullen) v Home Secretary [2004] UKHL 18.

Mr Adams was convicted of murder, but the conviction was quashed after a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal, because his legal representatives had not considered unused material made available to them by the prosecution. That included material which might have undermined parts of the prosecution case. The Secretary of State refused his application for compensation for miscarriage of justice, which is governed by section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The High Court and the Court of Appeal in turn rejected his legal challenge to the Secretary of State's decision, and Mr Adams appealed to the Supreme Court.

The court unanimously dismissed the appeal. All members of the court agreed that compensation is payable if an individual has had a final conviction reversed in circumstances where a new or newly-discovered fact shows that he was in fact innocent of the crime of which he was convicted. A majority of 5 held that compensation is payable on the basis of a test which is wider: if the new fact so undermines the evidence against him that no conviction could possibly be based upon it. The minority would have held that only actual innocence would qualify the individual for compensation.

Two appeals from Northern Ireland were heard at the same time. That distinction was critical to the Northern Irish cases, and the individuals in those appeals therefore succeeded by a 5-4 majority.