CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 mai 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary March 2023 Hallam v. the United Kingdom (relinquishment) - 32483/19 and 35049/19   Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Refusal of compensation for miscarriage of justice, following quashing of applicants’ criminal convictions as “unsafe”, for failing to meet new statutory test: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber [This summary also covers the case Nealon v. United Kingdom , no. 32483/19, 14 May 2020] The applicants had their criminal convictions quashed on the ground they were “unsafe” in the light of new evidence that had emerged. Subsequently, they both applied for compensation for miscarriage of justice under the statutory scheme provided for by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (“the Act”). The initial statutory test under section 133(1) of the Act for obtaining compensation for a miscarriage of justice had required “that a new or newly discovered fact showed beyond reasonable doubt that there had been a miscarriage of justice”. Following the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Allen v. the United Kingdom, the Act was amended, with the new section 133(1ZA) providing for compensation for a miscarriage of justice only where the “new or newly discovered fact showed beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had not committed the offence”. It was under this amended provision that both applicants’ applications for compensation were considered and rejected by the Ministry of Justice for not satisfying the new test. The applicants’ requests for judicial review of the decisions were rejected and their appeals were dismissed as the domestic courts held that – notwithstanding what the Grand Chamber had said in Allen – Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) had no bearing on a decision for compensation under section 133(1ZA) of the Act. A subsequent appeal by the applicants to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. That court also held, by a majority, that Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) was not applicable to a decision for compensation under the above section. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the rejection of their compensation claims for miscarriage of justice on the basis of the new test in section 133(1ZA) of the Act breached their right to be presumed innocent. On 28 February 2023 a Chamber of the Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. (See also Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], 25424/09, 12 July 2013, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .