Benefits law change for miscarriage of justice victims comes into force
Until now, compensation for miscarriage of justice sometimes dragged people above the threshold for claiming certain welfare payments.
Under a legislative change taking effect from Tuesday, these payouts will now be exempted when assessing eligibility for: income-based jobseeker's allowance, income-related employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, pension credit and universal credit.
Social security minister Sir Stephen Timms MP said the move was part of wider Government action aimed at 'rebuilding trust in our systems', which he said 'begins by restoring trust with those the system has failed'.
'We can't return the years lost by miscarriage of justice victims — but we can, and must, ensure they have every opportunity to restart their lives so they can make the most of the years ahead,' he said.
He encouraged anyone who has received miscarriage of justice compensation to 'come forward, so we can ensure they receive the help they are entitled to'.
The law change comes after campaigners including Andrew Malkinson, who was wrongly convicted of rape, called for greater access to support for those like him whose names have been cleared.
Andrew Malkinson has said he is 'intensely relieved' by the rule change but that further reform is needed (PA)
Mr Malkinson, who was the victim of one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history, has said while the new rule 'ends a stark injustice', further reforms are needed.
Speaking earlier this month, he said he was 'intensely relieved' by the law change but would continue calling on the Government to lift the cap on legal compensation payments.
The Ministry of Justice is to raise the amount paid to people wrongly jailed for more than a decade to £1.3 million, but Mr Malkinson has described the proposed increase as 'insulting'.
He has also spoken out against rules under which payouts are only awarded to people who can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
'I remain determined to challenge the completely unfair cap on compensation for the wrongfully convicted – and the ridiculous requirement that a person in my position be required to prove their innocence a second time to get compensated,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Spectator
The ballad of broken Britain
In my corner of Bristol, alongside drug dealers, shoplifters and street drinkers, we now have our very own pyromaniac. They started small – an abandoned office chair, a clothing bank and an old telephone box – before moving on to bigger things. Half a dozen cars have been torched over the past few months, including two on my road, and, most recently, a derelict pub. The other Saturday, hearing a commotion outside, my wife jumped out of bed and flung open the curtains. The scene that greeted us was apocalyptic. In daylight, on a narrow suburban street, the arsonist had set fire to three motorbikes parked in a row, which in turn had set alight a car and a hedge. It was pandemonium. People were wandering around in their nightclothes, some barefoot, having been advised by the police to leave their homes. The bikes and car were engulfed in flames, and thick clouds of black smoke billowed over the houses. The fire brigade arrived quickly and soon had things under control, but the resulting carnage was like West Belfast circa the 1970s after a mortar attack. Setting vehicles alight is a serious criminal offence, not to mention incredibly dangerous, yet the police response was sluggish. For weeks, charred motorbike frames and the blackened shells of cars sat on melted tarmac. Wandering the area felt like disaster tourism. Eventually, after mounting complaints, a meeting was called with councillors and police in attendance. However, what was meant to be a discussion about the fires quickly turned into a free-for-all on rising crime. It was a comically British affair – lots of blustering and cries of: 'Do speak up, we can't hear you at the back!' There also seemed to be a few budding local sleuths who'd uncovered some quite extraordinary goings-on that the police were unaware of. Notwithstanding our resident Miss Marples, if we'd gone looking for reassurance, we didn't get any. Although we were told we could report incidents online and expect a response within 72 hours. Amazing. You'd hope the issue would be resolved by then. Still, there were tea and biscuits – so that was all right. In effect, the mostly middle-class crowd came away with the impression that it was down to them to manage the situation: 'You can apply for a council grant to install CCTV at your house, or buy one of those camera doorbell thingies.' The police, it seems, don't have the time or resources. One thing we were promised was increased patrols, but our local 'cop shop' is only open a few hours a week, and I don't think I've seen a policeman on foot in the 20-odd years I've been here. You do see the occasional PCSO, but they engender about as much confidence as a Boy Scout left in charge of an anti-aircraft battery. Thankfully, I recently escaped to Menorca for a week. There's very little crime, no graffiti, no litter, and the sea – a major draw – is crystal clear. The overall impression is of a laid-back, prosperous, well-run place that the inhabitants are proud of. Coming back to the UK was a kick in the Balearics due to the stark contrast. It felt like returning home to find the front door bashed in, the house ransacked and someone cooking crystal meth on the stove. Within hours, we'd seen drug deals, masked youths speeding about on electric motorbikes and drunks stumbling in the road. The usual dope smoke, graffiti tagging and filthy streets completed the picture. If we lived in a more affluent part of Bristol, or some rural idyll, perhaps the return wouldn't have hit quite so hard. But I still wouldn't have been able to escape the headlines: water company bosses pocketing millions while pumping effluent into rivers and seas; polls suggesting almost half of the public think Britain is becoming lawless; a justice system in crisis; dire public finances; a government desperate to avoid another summer of rioting. The sense – to borrow one of the Prime Minister's favourite phrases – is of a country in managed decline. Except the decline isn't being managed very well. Yes, Menorca is small and sparsely populated – easier to keep pristine. And yes, coming home from holiday is always a downer. However, the overwhelming impression was of returning to a country that had lost its way. A 16-year-old boy was recently arrested in connection with the pub fire. Dozens of cars have since had their tyres slashed, and someone took a machete to a row of saplings – so, irrespective of whether or not he's the arsonist, we're not out of the woods yet. Although, thanks to the idiot with the machete, there won't now be a wood – or even a copse. In Richard II, John of Gaunt laments: 'That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.' Hasn't it just? And, as Abraham Lincoln observed: 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' So, while tea and biscuits may long have been a social lubricant in Britain, there are times when cohesion is so frayed, we need more than that – and I'm afraid this is one of them. To be honest, though, you'd probably get bored with Menorca after a while. All that sand – it's a bastard to get out of your shoes.
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform
The National
an hour ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.
