The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Tuesday in favour of the UK government’s decision to deny compensation to two men who had suffered a miscarriage of justice due to wrongful convictions.

The case was brought by Victor Nealon and Sam Hallam, who served a combined 24 years in prison before their convictions were quashed. Nealon was convicted of attempted rape in 1996 and served 17 years before new DNA evidence revealed the presence of another man’s DNA on the victim’s clothes. Hallam, convicted of murder in 2004, served over seven years before his conviction was overturned due to doubts about key evidence.

The UK government argued that compensation could only be awarded if it was proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the men were innocent. This stringent criterion, codified in the amended Section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, was central to the legal battle.

The applicant contended that this requirement was in contravention of Article 6 § 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees the presumption of innocence. They argued that the test for compensation under Section 133(1ZA) required them to prove their innocence to be eligible for compensation. Therefore, the refusal to compensate them essentially implied their guilt.

However, the ECHR’s grand chamber, by a 12 to 5 majority, ruled that the UK’s compensation criteria did not violate the convention. The court stated:

Finding that it could not be shown beyond reasonable doubt that an applicant had not committed an offence – by reference to a new or newly discovered fact or otherwise – was not tantamount to finding that he or she had committed the offence. Therefore, it could not be said that the refusal of compensation by the Justice Secretary attributed criminal guilt to the applicants.

This ruling is significant in light of recent high-profile cases like that of Andrew Malkinson, who served 17 years for a crime he did not commit, which led to an independent inquiry into the handling of the case.

Nealon and Hallam’s cases have ignited public debate about the UK’s approach to compensating victims of miscarriage of justice. Supporters have rallied behind the exonerated individuals, calling for a more compassionate and just system.