R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice

Ratio Decidendi

Hechos

Mr Adams (whose appeal was heard with others) had been convicted of murder and served years in prison before his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal because of failures in the conduct of his defence, meaning he had not received a fair trial. He applied to the Secretary of State for compensation for a miscarriage of justice under s.133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which gives a right to compensation where a conviction is reversed on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Resumen de la sentencia

The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the statutory right to compensation for a 'miscarriage of justice' under s.133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is not confined to cases where the applicant proves that they were clearly innocent, but nor does it extend to every case where a conviction is quashed as unsafe. The majority adopted an intermediate category: a newly discovered fact will found a claim where it so undermines the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it, even if positive innocence is not established. It is therefore not necessary to prove conclusively that the applicant did not commit the offence, but it is not enough merely that the conviction was unsafe or that the applicant should not have been convicted on the evidence. The Court divided sharply on precisely where the line lay, with strong dissents. Adams's own claim failed on the facts because the fresh material did not meet even this test. (Section 133 was later amended by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to require proof of innocence.) The case is the leading authority on the meaning of 'miscarriage of justice' for compensation.

Citas clave

Tratamiento posterior