2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of Mr. Dennis, Mr. Tunbridge, and Mr. Ali, who sought compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for wrongful convictions later quashed. The court evaluated the Supreme Court's interpretation in Adams, determining it upheld the Secretary of State's decisions concerning compensation claims. The court underscored that the legal framework for
Judgment
Lord Justice Maurice Kay:
This is the judgment of the Court to which Lady Justice Sharp has made a substantial contribution.
Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 133) as amended provides a statutory entitlement to compensation to persons whose criminal convictions have been reversed in out-of-time appeals or where they have been pardoned, on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice; and for the question as to whether there is a right to such compensation to be determined by the Secretary of State. The provision was introduced to give statutory effect to the United Kingdom’s obligations under article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the ICCPR”) which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 th December 1966 and ratified by the United Kingdom on 20 th May 1976.
The meaning and effect of section 133 and, in particular, what is meant by the phrase “miscarriage of justice” has been considered in a number of cases at appellate level, most recently in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18 ; [2012] 1 AC 48 where the Supreme Court considered two conjoined appeals: by Mr Adams on appeal from the Court of Appeal: References in this judgment to Adams are to the decision of the Supreme Court, unless otherwise indicated. R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] EWCA Civ 1291 ; [2010] QB 460 ; and by Mr MacDermott and Mr McCartney from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland: In re MacDermott’s and McCartney’s Application for Judicial Review [2010] NICA 3 ; [2010] NIJB 316.
In the wake of the decision in Adams the Administrative Court (Irwin J) ordered that five cases, including those of the appellants, presenting different factual scenarios in which applications for compensation under section 133 had been refused by the Secretary of State and where the decision was challenged by an application for judicial review, should be heard at the same time.
The appellants had each been convicted of criminal offences, served sentences of imprisonment (in whole or in part) and then had their convictions reversed by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (the CACD). Mr Ali and Mr Tunbridge were not subject to retrials after their convictions were quashed. Mr Dennis was retried, but was acquitted after his retrial was stopped at half-time.
The decision in Adams led to an appl