Clarke proposes cap on compensation for wrong convictions |
|
|
Published
:
Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:35
|
LONDON: The government is limiting the maximum payouts to those found wrongly convicted to 500,000 pounds, similar to amounts paid to victims of crime. Announcing changes in prevailing rules, home secretary Charles Clarke said individuals whose convictions are overturned on first appeal will not be entitled to compensation, even if they have spent time in custody.
The home secretary is to introduce a legislation covering these proposals.
He said compensation will be paid to those whose convictions are quashed following presentation of new facts months or years later.
These changes will save more than 5 million pounds a year, said Clarke, adding the government will plough back this amount saved to improve criminal justice and support for victims of crime. "The government is committed to putting victims' interests at the heart of the criminal justice system," he added.
The changes are intended to allay fears that victims of crime receive less than those who are wrongly convicted.
The home secretary said payouts to victims of wrong convictions have been increasing over the years and in 2005, the average compensation paid rose to 250,000 pounds from 170,000 pounds in 2003. The highest amount paid was 2.1 million pounds.
Meanwhile, victims of crime received amounts averaging 5,000 pounds each, the maximum amount paid limited to 500,000 pounds.
On an average some 40 people are given compensation for wrong convictions a year. The new rule will reduce the number of claimants to 30, as at least 10 of these claimants will be those whose convictions are overturned on first appeal.
Clarke said the payouts will be decided after taking into account criminal convictions, in which case there could be no payments at all. He showed the example of a person charged with a series of violent robberies having received 75,000 pounds as compensation after one of the convictions was quashed.
Clarke said criminals should not be allowed to have their convictions quashed because of technical errors committed during trials. He would like the court of appeal to make fewer decisions on technicalities and more based on facts whether the offender had carried out the crime or not.
He said miscarriage of justice cases seem to be a massive industry for the legal profession that had little to do with justice.
He announced a review of the test used by the court of appeal to quash criminal convictions. He said he would examine whether, and if so to what extent, an error in the trial process necessarily means a miscarriage of justice. The review team, with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, and the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, will look at giving the court of appeal the option of a "not proven" verdict, which effectively leaves a stain on someone’s reputation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Print this Story
European Commission reins in Coca-Cola 