by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (May 9th 2011)
Presumed Guilty
“I don’t care about the money,” is a frequent refrain of the innocent. “I want my name back and an apology.” Usually they get neither, because miscarriage of justice organisations and campaigners still don’t get it. Quashing a conviction is no more than half the job. The criminal justice system does not care about guilt or innocence; it never did.
An acquittal at trial is nothing more than an admission that the prosecutor could not prove the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a declaration of innocence. Appeal is no better. If a conviction is quashed, it meant that the conviction was found to be unsafe. That is not the same as a finding of innocence. Occasionally judges make sure that there is no doubt, by saying that they are not finding the appellant innocent. There is no verdict of innocence, yet that is demanded now in compensation claims.
Exoneration
Annette Hewins, Sion Jenkins, Barry George and Andrew Adams are part of a growing trend. Their convictions were quashed on appeal, yet none of them have received a penny in compensation because the Assessor decided that they had not been exonerated. The fact that there is no verdict at trial or appeal in British law that guarantees exoneration seems to have escaped politicians, eager to save pennies at the expense of those wronged by society.
The former Unionist MP, Lord John Laird, sought clarification. Laird asked the government to “issue a practice direction to criminal courts ensuring judges declare any defendant acquitted at trial, or appellant whose conviction has been quashed as unsafe on appeal, as innocent at the close of the court proceedings.”
He also asked the government “whether they will ensure that appropriate compensation and aftercare is provided to such persons?” His question and the subsequent answer from Lord Tom McNally, a Minister of State at the Ministry of justice were ignored by media expressing an interest now the Supreme Court is considering these issues.
Practice
“Practice directions in the criminal courts are a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, not the Government,” said McNally. “It has long been an important feature of our criminal justice system that a person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. A person found not guilty is to be treated as innocent, as too is a person whose conviction has been quashed on appeal.”
But the practice is different. Exoneration is required for compensation now. “A person whose conviction is quashed on appeal may apply for compensation under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Entitlement to compensation under that provision will be considered shortly by the Supreme Court in the case of Adams.”
Actually they can’t. The abolition of the Discretionary Scheme means that any person whose conviction is quashed in an in time first appeal will not qualify under Section 133. Even if there is no doubt about innocence whatsoever, they are not entitled to anything and the government not only knows it, but refused to right the wrong. The very same minister Lord McNally said as much previously when asked to restore the Discretionary Scheme by Lord Laird.
“The discretionary compensation scheme was abolished on 19 April 2006 by the then Home Secretary and the coalition Government have no plans to reintroduce it,” said McNally. “We will continue to consider applications for compensation under the statutory scheme, Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which fully meets our international obligations.”
It also excludes anyone who had the temerity to be acquitted or have their convictions quashed on a first appeal even if they are proved innocent later by the conviction of the real perpetrator.