Latest news with #miscarriagesofjustice
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Innocent 'Beast of Birkenhead' Peter Sullivan now in line for £1.3m payout but lawyers say miscarriage of justice changes 'don't go nearly far enough'
Labour has announced an increase in maximum pay-outs to victims of miscarriages of justice – but the changes do not go far enough, lawyers have warned. The current cap on compensation payments for people wrongly jailed for 10 years or more will rise by £300,000 to £1.3million, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed today. The ceiling on payments to those wrongly jailed for up to 10 years will also rise by 30 per cent to £650,000. The increase is likely to mean that Peter Sullivan – whose conviction was quashed in May for a murder he did not commit – will now be due a higher pay-out. In one of Britain's worst miscarriages of justice Mr Sullivan spent 38 years behind bars before judges overturned his conviction for the 1986 murder of 21-year-old florist Diane Sindall. Erroneously dubbed the 'Beast of Birkenhead' after the brutal killing, Mr Sullivan had long protested his innocence. The sheer length of his wrongful jail term means he is expected to be awarded a sum to the limit of the new cap. In another high-profile case, Andrew Malkinson was wrongly jailed for rape for 17 years and finally freed two years ago. Months after his release he had received no pay-out and described himself as 'broke' and 'living in a tent'. In February it emerged Mr Malkinson had received a 'significant' six-figure interim pay-out – but his final application is yet to be resolved. Solicitor Toby Wilton, who is representing Mr Malkinson in his compensation claim, said Ms Mahmood's announcement 'does not go nearly far enough'. 'The current maximum cap on compensation of £1million was introduced in 2008,' Mr Wilton said. '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. 'While this proposal is welcome, it does not go nearly far enough.' He added: 'The Government and Parliament should think again. 'A 30 per cent increase in the cap, whilst welcome, does not come close to addressing this unfairness. 'Increased by RPI inflation, the measure the courts use to uprate compensation amounts, £1million in 2008 would be closer to £2million today.' Announcing the changes, Ms 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. 'This uplift will ensure victims are compensated for the crimes they did not commit and the years they cannot get back.' The exact amount of compensation is decided by an independent assessor. Applications must be made within two years of being pardoned or having a conviction quashed as a result of a newly-discovered fact.
BBC News
15-07-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Cap on payouts for miscarriage of justice victims to increase
The government has increased the cap on payouts to victims of miscarriages of justice to ensure they are compensated for "the years they cannot get back".The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said the maximum amount will be raised in England and Wales for the first time since 2008, from £1m to £ Malkinson, who had his conviction quashed in 2023 after spending 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, previously described the cap as "ridiculous".Reacting to the uplift, legal charity Appeal, which represented Mr Malkinson in challenging his wrongful conviction, argued the increase "falls far short of matching inflation". On Tuesday, the government said that the cap would be raised by 30%. This would bring the limit on compensation for people who have been in jail for 10 years or more to £1.3m, and £650,000 for up to a a statement, the MoJ said the increase would create "a fairer and better justice system".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."This uplift will ensure victims are compensated for the crimes they did not commit and the years they cannot get back."Once eligible, the level of compensation will be decided by an independent assessor. In a statement, investigator James Burley, who led Appeal's investigation into Mr Malkinson's case, said: "This is a step forward, but the increase falls far short of matching inflation since the cap's introduction in 2008."Wrongful conviction survivors like Andrew Malkinson have endured unimaginable pain. The compensation they receive to rebuild their lives should reflect that reality, not be limited by an arbitrary cap."
The Guardian
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
More trials with no jury will disadvantage people of colour, campaigners warn
Removing the right to a jury trial for more offences would disadvantage people of colour and other minorities and lead to more miscarriages of justice, reformers have warned. Sir Brian Leveson's independent review of the criminal courts in England and Wales is expected to be published this week and recommend the creation of intermediate courts, sitting without a jury, to try some offences. The rationale is that it would reduce the record backlog in crown courts, where juries hear the most serious cases. But justice reformers say it would mean that, instead of being tried by a jury of their peers, defendants would be put before magistrates and judges who often come from a narrow section of society. Matt Foot, the co-director of the charity Appeal, which successfully fought for Andrew Malkinson's murder conviction to be overturned, said: 'Reducing jury rights will inevitably increase the number of miscarriages of justice. 'We know that judges tend to be privately educated and white, which is a long way away from the makeup of juries. 'To reduce jury rights at the time when we know through the [Louise] Casey review that we have serious problems within the police of racism and homophobia and such is completely unjustified.' Foot said that while juries sometimes made the wrong decisions, they were usually due to them being presented with the wrong evidence or because of the directions of judges, and that juries were much more likely to bear a resemblance to the defendant. He also said trials without juries could increase the number of people going to jail at a time when prisons are overcrowded, and a lack of funding and lawyers rather than jury trials had caused the backlog to soar. His concerns were echoed by Tyrone Steele, the deputy legal director at Justice, who said: 'Everyone deserves a fair trial, free from discrimination. Jury trial is an important means of safeguarding this right and ensuring confidence in our criminal courts. 'Racialised defendants tried before a jury are convicted at very similar rates to their white counterparts. In contrast, worrying disparities exist in magistrates courts' convictions. Black women, for example, are 22% more likely to be found guilty at the magistrates court than white women. 'The government should be cautious about introducing an intermediate court, which could result in a worsening of public trust and confidence at a time when it is needed most.' The latest judicial diversity statistics show that ethnic minorities make up 12% of judges in England and Wales, while the representation of black judges has remained unchanged at 1% for a decade. While there has been a proposal that two lay magistrates sit with the judge in the intermediate court, in its submission to the Leveson review, Justice said: 'It should be noted that the magistracy has some way to go before it can be said to be sufficiently representative of society as a whole … the magistracy continues to disproportionately attract middle class applicants, aged 50 and above.' Among magistrates, 14% were from an ethnic minority, according to the judicial diversity statistics. The 2021 census showed that 19% of people in England and Wales were from an ethnic minority and 4.2% were black. In 2022, a study by the University of Manchester and the barrister Keir Monteith KC claimed the judiciary in England and Wales was 'institutionally racist'. It conducted a survey of 373 legal professionals, 56% of whom said they had witnessed at least one judge acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant, while 52% had witnessed discrimination in judicial decision-making. Justice has said that if intermediate courts were introduced it should be made explicit that they are an emergency measure, rather than a permanent change.
The Guardian
15-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Politicians, lawyers and doctors express concern over use of expert witnesses in English courts
A lack of regulation over the use of expert witnesses in English courts could be leading to miscarriages of justice, senior politicians, lawyers and doctors have said. The former attorney general Dominic Grieve and the former justice secretary Jack Straw were among those to tell the Guardian that criminal and civil trials were sometimes hanging on evidence by self-appointed 'experts' who could lack relevant knowledge. Grieve warned that although experts were supposed to be independent, they often came across as being 'hired guns'. 'Expert evidence is clearly critical, legitimate and in some cases can be absolute clinchers,' he said. But when dealing with issues 'at the limits of human scientific knowledge and understanding', expert witnesses could make people feel comfortable about making decisions when 'quite frankly, the evidence isn't there', he said. Concerns over the use of expert witnesses have been raised in relation to the case of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse convicted of murdering seven babies. Lawyers appealing against her conviction argue that the expert evidence presented at her trial was flawed. Expert witnesses were also criticised during the Post Office scandal, where subpostmasters were convicted of stealing based on evidence from IT experts that has been subject to criticism. Expert witnesses are used in both criminal and civil courts to give information and opinion on matters relevant to the case that would be considered outside the knowledge of a judge or jury. They are supposed to give an objective and unbiased opinion, according to guidelines from the Crown Prosecution Service, and can be instructed by the prosecution and the defence. But there are no formal controls on who can describe themself as an expert or training required to ensure they understand legal procedure. Jack Straw, a former justice secretary, said there was a 'nagging worry' that expert witnesses were not being properly regulated. He said courts often encourage both sides to agree on using one expert witness, to save on time and costs, but 'in my view this emphasises even more the need for there to be better regulation of expert witnesses' to ensure reliability. Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor for north-west England, said there are 'a number of issues' with the system. He said it would generally be up to a judge to decide whether somebody has the relevant expertise, which becomes more complicated if the area of expertise is related to 'lived experience' rather than science. With international experts, he said, it may also be difficult for a court to verify their qualifications. He also said there were issues with 'expert shopping', where lawyers will consult different experts until they find one who will say what they need them to. The law firm Bond Solon offers expert witnesses training, and also runs an annual survey that looks at improving standards of expert evidence. More than a third of experts who responded to the 2024 survey said they had experienced 'hired gun' experts in their field in the past year, referring to people who provide 'evidence to substantiate the opinion preferred by the instructing party'. One in four also said they had been pressured by solicitors to produce biased opinions. Simon Berney-Edwards, the chief executive of the Expert Witness Institute, a not-for-profit membership body for expert witnesses which provides training, vetting and a directory, said there 'is no bar set' to ensure people not only have the correct qualifications, but that they understand legal procedure. 'There is no thing that says [expert witnesses] have to be registered with their professional body, or with any regulatory body. The onus on vetting the quality of their expert remains very much with the legal team,' he said. 'Many people will say that they're doing expert witness work but haven't had one bit of training. Where you've got people that don't understand what they're doing, that's where you get the problems, the possible miscarriages of justice.' Expert witnesses are paid for their time, and although in criminal cases – particularly those funded via legal aid – it is not always very lucrative, people can make large sums in civil and medico-legal work. Prof Sir Norman Williams, a former president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, carried out a government commissioned review into gross negligence manslaughter prosecutions against medical professionals in 2018 that found widespread concern about expert witnesses. The review found issues with 'the quality and consistency of opinion provided by healthcare professionals acting as expert witnesses' that may not be uncovered until trial or appeal, and made recommendations for more training. 'Ideally one would like to see a system that was better regulated, but I can't see that happening easily,' Williams said. 'You have to be somewhat concerned that problems [highlighted in the review] can recur, because some cases are very complex, they're difficult for juries to appreciate. If all the factors aren't taken into consideration, there could be miscarriages of justice.' Jonathan Lord, an NHS consultant gynaecologist and co-chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists abortion taskforce, said there is concern among medics about some witness evidence that has come before the courts. 'They are hired by one side, not the court, and many have substantial earnings from this work, so conflicts of interest that would not be acceptable in other professional spheres are embedded into the system,' he said. 'While they are supposed to be neutral, given the large payments involved and the need to be called and engaged again in the future, it's hard to be reassured that bias doesn't creep in.'
The Guardian
15-06-2025
- The Guardian
What is the role of an expert witness and how are they used in English courts?
Senior politicians, lawyers and doctors have warned that a lack of regulation over the use of expert witnesses in English courts could be leading to miscarriages of justice. But what is an expert witness and who gets to be one? An expert witness is someone who has specialised knowledge in a particular field, and appears in court to provide an objective and impartial opinion to help those involved in a case, such as a judge or jury, understand a particular issue. Expert witnesses can be useful to magistrates and juries in helping them to determine the issues in a criminal case, including whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. They are used in many aspects of civil law, and different experts have been used to provide evidence on everything from medical issues and forensics to construction and engineering. A solicitor or legal team will choose an expert with the necessary qualifications and experience in their relevant field, and it is ultimately up to a court to decide whether they can appear as a witness. However, there is no regulatory body that governs expert witnesses, and there are concerns that someone who wants to appear as a witness can 'self-appoint' and declare themselves to be an expert in a particular area. Sometimes solicitors will contact someone directly who they believe may have expertise in a particular area. There are also listing sites where experts can register and these private companies will connect lawyers to people in various fields, including forensics and medical specialists. Some agencies offer 'urgent quotes within the hour'. Rates can vary hugely, with fees varying between the type of expert and the type of case. Some will be paid less than £100 an hour in legal aid cases, but fees for others will be much more. In criminal prosecutions, the crown must provide defence teams with access to all material that is capable of undermining the prosecution case, including expert opinions. However, there is no requirement on the defence to do the same. In civil litigation, there is also a legal obligation for parties to share any relevant documents or other information that could support or undermine their case.
