The Secretary of State currently chooses to ignore the second limb of Lord Bingham's
formulation that something had seriously gone wrong at trial which would afford many
more appellants the right to be awarded compensation when their convictions were
That will be subject to a challenge by Solicitors acting for Adams in the Supreme
Court next year .
In a recent development Barry George was also given permission to challenge the refusal
to award him compensation .
It does not seem right that we are prepared to convict people but then not compensate
them when they have clearly suffered an injustice .
The Court have held that the refusal of the Justice Secretary to award Ian Lawless
compensation is arguably unlawful and irrational .
Ian Lawless had his murder conviction quashed in June 2009 and the only evidence
against him were his own confessions which were deemed to be unreliable based upon
fresh evidence form Professor Gisli Gudjjonson .
Jordans contend that the Justice Secretary’s argument that he should not be entitled
to compensation is perverse and wholly irrational . If the only evidence against
him was unreliable then he must meet the effective test of innocence laid down in
the tests formulated by Lord Steyn and Bingham .
The case highlights an ongoing issue over the current approach of the Ministry of
Justice and the Courts to the discretionary Scheme under Section 133 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 which currently only provides for those who can prove innocence
to qualify for compensation .
August 2010 - The Administrative Court have given Ian Lawless permission to challenge
the refusal by the Justice Secretary to award him compensation