A Case against Section 133(1AZ) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

The United Kingdom adopted section 133(1AZ) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in 2014 to define ‘miscarriage of justice,’ which is an essential element of unlawful conviction. The move followed the contentious decision in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice,^[1] where the Supreme Court attempted to define the phrase. The court held that a miscarriage of justice can arise in two scenarios. It arises where new evidence renders a previously convicted person factually innocent and where a higher court finds a conviction unsafe due to failures in the trial process, which rendered the person guilty.^[2] In contrast, the new section 133(1AZ) restricts the definition to situations where a party proves their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.^[3] The provision requires a person seeking compensation for an unlawful conviction to prove their factual innocence to the Secretary of State first. It presumes that all persons who go through the criminal justice system are guilty, even if their sentences are reversed on appeal. The requirement to prove one’s innocence violates the right to a fair hearing, and the United Kingdom should review the provision.

Victims of unlawful conviction suffer both physical and emotional effects – situations that worsen in their quest for compensation. Emotionally, they may find the stress and anxiety that come with the conviction unbearable. Some may even contemplate death by suicide.^[4] They may also suffer physical distress and difficulties while in custody. Therefore, the parties who successfully appeal their sentences should get compensation as a matter of right immediately after the reversal.^[5] The compensation can help repair the damage and losses that resulted from their experiences of unlawful conviction. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom’s legal framework presents an unfavorable legal framework for seeking and receiving compensation. For instance, section 133 requires the parties to apply for compensation to the Secretary of State within two years after their conviction is reversed. They must then wait for the Secretary of State to determine the amount of compensation. Additionally, section 133(1AZ) requires the applicants to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Such experiences may worsen the consequences of an unlawful conviction.

Everyone is entitled to the universal right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proven according to the law.^[6] The right enables parties to enjoy protection from unfair processes during the trial. It puts the burden of proving the guilt on the prosecution. States must always protect such rights from any form of threat. However, the United Kingdom unreasonably introduced section 133(1AZ) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The provision requires applicants to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt when applying for compensation. In addition to the unfair legal requirements, the compensation process lacks the benefits of a full trial.^[7] For instance, the Secretary of State may sometimes ignore the essential rules of evidence. Such challenges may reduce the applicant’s chances of getting compensation, which is a right recognized in law.

In conclusion, getting compensation for human rights violations should never involve infringement of other rights. Unfortunately, section 133(1AZ) of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 creates a legal requirement that exposes the applicants to human rights violations. It requires the victims to prove their factual innocence beyond a reasonable doubt before getting compensation. The parliament should review the provision to eliminate the offending parts and enhance the process of obtaining compensation for unlawful convictions.

1.R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18. ↑
2.Hoyle Carolyn and Laura Tilt, ‘Not innocent enough: State compensation for miscarriages of justice in England and Wales,’ (2019) 2020 Criminal Law Review 1. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e578b56c-68b3-43fe-a3e7-58d2ab8e524b/files/mdb3c6daf2d844d0b8684d5ae00e6526c. ↑

3.Hoyle and Tilt (n2) 7. ↑

4.Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 133(1AZ). ↑

5.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, Article 14(6). ↑

6.European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(2). ↑

7.Hoyle and Laura (n2) 6. ↑

Cases

Statutes

Criminal Justice Act 1988

European Convention on Human Rights 1950

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

Secondary Sources

Carolyn H and Tilt L, ‘Not innocent enough: State compensation for miscarriages of justice in England and Wales,’ (2019) 2020 Criminal Law Review 1 <https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e578b56c-68b3-43fe-a3e7-58d2ab8e524b/files/mdb3c6daf2d844d0b8684d5ae00e6526c>