The public outpouring for Andrew Malkinson, after the quashing of his conviction for a rape for which he was imprisoned for 17 years, is now focused on how he will be compensated. Since the release of the Bridgewater Four in 1997, the state has recouped the cost of board and lodgings from the compensation given to some victims of miscarriages of justice. The innocent have paid for the pleasure of living at their majesty’s pleasure. So dignified was Malkinson’s rage against this that, almost immediately, the government announced the practice would be scrapped, so that fairness can prevail.
While this is welcome, there still remains a brutal compensation scheme. This is because of a test that was introduced in 2014, snuck into the Criminal Justice Act. Section 133 (1ZA) declares that compensation is only available if the new or newly discovered fact that led to the conviction being quashed shows “beyond reasonable doubt” that the person did not commit the offence. During the 2014 parliamentary debate about the test, the late Jack Dromey MP said: “I stress again that the essence of our argument, and that supported by all parties and crossbenchers in the other place, is that an individual is innocent until proved guilty. We see no good reason why a victim of a miscarriage of justice should suffer a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test.”
