Londoner takes 'miscarriage of justice' compensation battle to court
A man from East London is taking his legal battle for "miscarriage of justice" compensation to the UK's highest court.
Sam Hallam was convicted of murder before having it overturned, not before spending seven years in prison. Mr Hallam's previous claim for compensation in 2015 was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
In 2005 Mr Hallam was convicted of murdered a trainee chef at the Old Bailey but this was quashed in 2012 after an appeal judge ruled the convictions were unsafe following fresh information.
Mr Hallam's request for compensation was rejected by the Justice Secretary.
When their challenges against the Justice Secretary were originally aired at the High Court, they asked two judges to rule that UK law is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because it wrongly restricts compensation in "miscarriage of justice" cases.
Lawyers argued on their behalf that the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which governs compensation payments, was amended in 2014 in a way that violated Article 6 (2) of the ECHR - the presumption of innocence - because it required a person seeking an award to prove they were innocent.
Their compensation claims under the 1988 Act were rejected on the basis that it was not the case - as required by the Act - that a "new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice".
Lord Justice Burnett, who later became the Lord Chief Justice, ruled when announcing the High Court's decision that the law "does not require the applicant for compensation to prove his innocence".
He said: "It is the link between the new fact and the applicant's innocence of which the Secretary of State must be satisfied before he is required to pay compensation under the 1988 Act, not his innocence in a wider or general sense."