House of Lords
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.68.5.380.43227 |
| Published date | 01 October 2004 |
| Date | 01 October 2004 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Compensation for ‘miscarriage of justice’: Eligibility
Re McFarland (AP) (Northern Ireland) (Appellant) [2004] UKHL 17
M was charged with indecent assault in December 1998. During his trial
the magistrate hearing the case had seen the advocates in chambers and
had indicated that he was impressed by the complainant’s evidence and
that he would remit M to the Crown Court for sentencing, where he
might anticipate a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment or more. In the
light of this intimation M changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced
to eight months’ imprisonment. M served four months of the term
imposed upon him.
Having served his sentence, M applied for judicial review to quash his
conviction. The court found that M had been misled by the magistrate’s
statement since, under the relevant legislation, the magistrate could not
commit M to the Crown Court for sentence after conviction, and there-
fore the maximum sentence which M could have faced on conviction by
the magistrate was 12 months. M’s conviction was quashed because it
rested on a plea of guilty which was vitiated by the lack of true consent
on the part of M brought about by the misapprehension stemming from
the magistrate’s discussion with counsel. M sought compensation from
the Home Office but his application was rejected. M appealed on the
basis that Secretary of State acted unlawfully in declining to pay com-
pensation either under s. 133 of the Criminal Justice Act or under the ex
gratia scheme. M submitted that he was entitled to compensation (1) by
virtue of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), Article 14(6), as his conviction had been reversed on the
ground of a new or newly discovered fact which had shown there to
have been a miscarriage of justice; alternatively, (2) under the ex gratia
scheme because his conviction had resulted from a serious default on
the part of a member of a public authority, namely the magistrate.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL
, in 1985, the Home Secretary made a
statement with regard to the payment of compensation to persons who
had been wrongly convicted of criminal offences. He stated:
In future I shall be prepared to pay compensation to all . . . persons where
this is required by our international obligations. The International Cove-
nant on Civil and Political Rights [Article 14(6)] provides that:
‘When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal
offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed, or he
has been pardoned, on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact
shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the
person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall
be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-
disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to
him.’
I remain prepared to pay compensation to people who do not fall within
the terms of the preceding paragraph but who have spent a period in
380
To continue reading
Request your trial