The miscarriages of justice compensation scheme: Andrew Malkinson

Recently, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of Mr Malkinson. This is a shocking miscarriage of justice. Holroyd LJ found DNA evidence pointed to someone else, but also that "crucial material" was not disclosed at the time of his trial to the defence. It also seems forensics were not conducted! I look forward to the full inquiry.

At any rate, I've recently caught this article about poor Mr Malkinson having to be further humiliated vis-a-vis compensation for unlawful imprisonment. 

You might have thought this was a wind-up. I checked online, and it's quite true.

Until April 2006, in England and Wales, there were two compensation schemes for victims of miscarriages of justice: a discretionary scheme and a statutory scheme. The discretionary scheme was abolished, and the statutory scheme grants the Justice Secretary a discretion to pay compensation to a wrongly convicted person if “new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice”. 

Should the Secretary of State believe that an applicant is eligible for compensation under section 133, the amount actually awarded is determined by an independent assessor. Deductions are made for conduct that contributed to the conviction, his criminal record and “saved living expenses”. Moreover, the amount won't be particularly large; capped at £1m and calculated loosely on the concept of projected loss of earnings, minus saved living expense and some amount of the compensation reflecting the imprisonment itself.

This is staggering, frankly derisory. There is no automatic right to anything and the loss of earnings is capped at some concept of placing the recipient in the position in respect of earned money. It's not really compensation at all; it's just wages. And the fact that any amount can be deducted as "saved living costs" – when that person has been forcibly imprisoned against their will – is almost a parody, a sickening insult.

To my mind, it should not be about "compensation" for the years lost in accountant-speak; but rather it should permit the victim to move on, compensate the distress and wasted years and opportunities. It should be about the full freedom and comforts of which they were denied for so long.