logo
Man wrongly jailed for 17 years sparks compensation row as lawyer hits out

Man wrongly jailed for 17 years sparks compensation row as lawyer hits out

Daily Mirror2 days ago
Ministers have announced that victims of justice who are wrongly imprisoned for 10 years or more in England and Wales could get up to £1.3million in compensation
Andrew Malkinson's lawyer has said plans to increase an 'arbitrary' cap on compensation for victims of miscarriages of justice 'does not go nearly far enough'.

Ministers have announced that victims of justice who are wrongly jailed for 10 years or more in England and Wales could get up to £1.3million in compensation. It is a 30% uplift from the current £1m cap, which has not been changed since 2008.

The current £500,000 maximum amount of compensation payable to those who are wrongly jailed for up to 10 years will also be increased by 30% to £650,000.

It follows calls from Malkinson, who served 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, to reform the compensation scheme. But Toby Wilton, a solicitor representing the 59-year-old, warned the 30% increase 'does not come close to addressing this unfairness'.
He said: 'While this proposal is welcome, it does not go nearly far enough. The current maximum cap on compensation of £1m was introduced in 2008. Before that, compensation was not capped at all and applicants received compensation broadly in line with what they would receive in a Court of law.
'The government should return to this system, removing the arbitrary cap which unfairly penalises those who like Andrew Malkinson have suffered the longest lasting and most serious miscarriages of justice.

"A 30% increase in the cap, whilst welcome, does not come close to addressing this unfairness. The Government and Parliament should think again.'
He said the courts use RPI inflation to uprate compensation amounts, which if applied here, would mean £1m in 2008 would be closer to £2m today.

Mr Malkinson's conviction was overturned in 2023 after an almost 20-year fight for justice for years. But he did not receive his first compensation payment until earlier this year, following a year and a half of struggling to get by on benefits.
In February, Mr Malkinson described the compensation scheme as not "fit for purpose". "The ridiculous 2008 compensation cap which hasn't increased with inflation should be lifted, and people should automatically be accepted on to the scheme if their convictions are quashed," he said.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: 'Fairness is the ideal that underpins our justice system. Where it has failed to meet that ideal, victims of devastating miscarriages of justice must be able to rebuild their lives. T
"his uplift will ensure victims are compensated for the crimes they did not commit and the years they cannot get back.'
Malkinson, 59, had his conviction squashed in 2023 by the country's Court of Appeal after DNA evidence linked another suspect to the crime. He was working as a security guard in Salford when he was wrongly convicted in 2004 of an attack on a 33-year-old woman after she had picked him out form a police line-up.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges

Leader Live

time10 minutes ago

  • Leader Live

Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges

Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.

More than 100 Britons' details in leaked Afghan dataset, including spies and SAS
More than 100 Britons' details in leaked Afghan dataset, including spies and SAS

South Wales Argus

time10 minutes ago

  • South Wales Argus

More than 100 Britons' details in leaked Afghan dataset, including spies and SAS

Defence sources have said that details of MI6 spies, SAS and special forces personnel were included in the spreadsheet, after they had endorsed Afghans who had applied to be brought to the UK. The dataset, containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap), was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) became aware of the breach more than a year later, when excerpts of the spreadsheet were anonymously posted in a Facebook group in August 2023. Other details leaked included the names and contact details of the Arap applicants and names of their family members. Defence Secretary John Healey apologised on behalf of the British Government for the breach (Dan Kitwood/PA) In a statement on Tuesday, after an unprecedented superinjunction was lifted by a High Court judge, Defence Secretary John Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the British Government for the data breach. He later told the Commons the spreadsheet contained 'names and contact details of applicants and, in some instances, information relating to applicants' family members, and in a small number of cases the names of members of Parliament, senior military officers and Government officials were noted as supporting the application'. 'This was a serious departmental error,' he added. Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge also apologised on behalf of the former Conservative government, which was in power when the leak happened and when it was discovered more than a year later. Mr Cartlidge later asked Mr Healey about reports that someone other than the original person who leaked the data had been engaged in blackmail. Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021. Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including the estimated number of family members of the Arap applicants, were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024. However, an independent review, commissioned by the Government in January 2025, concluded last month that the dataset is 'unlikely to significantly shift Taliban understanding of individuals who may be of interest to them'. The breach resulted in the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – by the previous government in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million. Millions more are expected to be paid in legal costs and compensation. Around 4,500 people, made up of 900 Arap applicants and approximately 3,600 family members, have been brought to the UK or are in transit so far through the Afghanistan Response Route. A further estimated 600 people and their relatives are expected to be relocated before the scheme closes, with a total of around 6,900 people expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. Projected costs of the scheme may include relocation costs, transitional accommodation, legal costs and local authority tariffs. The case returned to the High Court in London on Thursday, sitting in a closed session in the morning where journalists and their lawyers were excluded. While private hearings exclude the public and press but allow the parties in the case to remain, closed hearings require specific lawyers who can deal with sensitive issues, including national security. During the public part of the hearing, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that while he needed to give lawyers for the Ministry of Defence an 'opportunity' to argue why a closed hearing was needed, 'I will be scrutinising very carefully any justification for holding any part of this hearing in private, let alone in closed'. The judge later said he would not be 'kicking the ball down the road'. He added: 'The superinjunction has now been lifted and if there are other matters that are capable of being reported in public, that needs to be able to happen straight away.' Also on Thursday, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) requested a number of documents used in the superinjunction proceedings be provided to it 'immediately'. This includes intelligence assessments from the MoD and the Joint Intelligence Organisation, as well as the unredacted report of retired civil servant Paul Rimmer. ISC chairman Lord Beamish continued that the committee had also asked for the reasons why barristers for the Government previously told the Court of Appeal that information about the breach could not be shared with the ISC.

Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges

South Wales Argus

time10 minutes ago

  • South Wales Argus

Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges

Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' A recreation of the Great Fire Of London of 1666, the same year a fine was last issued by the Commons (Hannah McKay/PA) Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store