UK courts are bound by UK rulings, not Strasbourg decisions, says Admin Court – Leanne Woods

19 June 2015 by

keep-calmR (Victor Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice : R (Sam Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 1565 (Admin), 8 June 2015 –  read judgment 

As Michael Gove contemplates the future of the Human Rights Act 1998, the High Court has considered how far the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) ECHR spreads into decisions on payment of compensation for a miscarriage of justice. In doing so, Burnett LJ also managed to find some less than complimentary sentiments about the Strasbourg court’s decision-making.

Sam Hallam was convicted of murder in 2011. Victor Nealon was convicted of rape in 1997. Both successfully appealed against their convictions and then applied to the Secretary of State (‘SoS’) for compensation under s133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the ‘1988 Act’’), as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the ‘2014 Act’). Both men were refused compensation on the basis that their circumstances did not meet the s133 statutory test (as amended).

Using Burnett LJ’s words, this test, incorporating the new definition of “miscarriage of justice” added by the 1988 Act (and s133(1ZA)) of the 1998 Act), operates as follows:

… when a person has been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence, the Secretary of State shall pay compensation for the miscarriage of justice to the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction etc.

Mr Nealon and Mr Hallam argued that this test was incompatible with Article 6(2) ECHR because it violated the presumption of innocence. They argued that s133(1ZA) required a person to prove his innocence. They wanted a declaration of incompatibility. The Court was far from persuaded by these arguments.

There are a number of interesting points in this judgment (although be warned that it is sometimes difficult to follow):

  1. The Court was faced with a one-on-one tug of war between ECHR and domestic authority. The latter emerged the easy winner. The claimants sought to rely on the Strasbourg court’s decision in Allen v United Kingdom 36 BHRC 1, decided on 12 July 2013. The defendant relied on the Supreme Court decision in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] 1 AC 48, a case decided before the s133(1ZA) definition of “miscarriage of justice” was introduced. The defendant also argued that the decision in Allen was erroneous.

In Adams a majority of the Supreme Court had found:

that while the presumption of innocence guaranteed by article 6.2 of the Convention prevented a state from undermining the effect of a criminal acquittal, the procedure enacted by section 133 of the 1988 Act providing for the decision on entitlement to compensation to be taken by the executive was separate and raised different questions from the proceedings in a criminal court, and the refusal of compensation on the basis that the claimant has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that a miscarriage of justice had occurred would not infringe article 6.2 .

The Divisional Court made clear it found itself bound by Adams to hold that Article 6(2) had no bearing on a decision on whether to award compensation under s133 of the 1988 Act, regardless of whether a miscarriage of justice covered circumstances where the new fact provided conclusive proof of innocence or whether, as introduced by s133(1ZA), that new fact showed beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence. Burnett LJ stated he was:

bound by the rules of precedent to follow decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (or House of Lords). Even were we satisfied in the context of a decision on the meaning of the ECHR that the Strasbourg Court had clearly disagreed with the domestic courts by which we are bound, we are obliged to adhere to our rules of precedent: Kay v. Lambeth London Borough Council [2006] 2 AC 465 at para 43.

Judging by the withering comments from Burnett LJ in regard to Strasbourg’s expansionist approach to Article 6(2), one might suspect he was perfectly happy to be so bound in this case (see below).

The Court did consider Allen in some detail, pointing out that it had not in fact been concerned with the meaning of “miscarriage of justice” or the compatibility of s133 of the 1988 Act with Article 6(2). It was actually concerned with the language that the High Court and Court of Appeal had used when refusing judicial review of the SoS’s refusal to pay compensation under s133. Ms Allen argued this language gave rise to doubts about her innocence. Nevertheless, the Grand Chamber went on to decide that Article 6(2) was applicable to compensation decisions made under s133 of the 1988, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusions in Adams.

  1. Burnett LJ seized this as an opportunity to observe that:

The Strasbourg Court has long interpreted Article 6(2) in a way which takes its meaning well beyond its natural language and the original intention underlying it. The further step taken in applying it to compensation proceedings of the sort in issue in this case may not be altogether surprising. (para 46)

He also described as “key” the observation made by Lord Phillips in Adams at para 58:

The court’s expansion of what would seem to be a rule intended to be part of the guarantee of a fair trial [Art6(2)] into something coming close to a principle of the law of defamation is one of the more remarkable examples of the fact that the Convention is a living instrument.

To add to this already fairly strong condemnation, Burnett LJ determined he should “mention the separate opinion” of Judge de Gaetano in Allen, which included:

  1. That the majority in Allen had simply “opted for a mere compilation of cases and generic statements” rather than undertaking a proper reassessment of Article 6(2); and
  2. That Article 6(2) “has no place whatsoever” in compensation proceedings following acquittal.

Although a decision at High Court level, defendant (government) lawyers will rightly view Burnett LJ’s words as providing helpful ammunition for defending future claims like this.

  1. For those interested in statutory interpretation and its multifarious rules and principles, this case is worth a glance. Burnett LJ’s examination of the meaning of ratio decidendi means we may also see his judgment arriving on law students’ reading lists.

The claimants had sought to argue that while seven members of the Supreme Court in Adams had decided that Article 6(2) was not relevant to the interpretation of s133, the reasons given had not been uniform. It was argued, therefore, that the High Court was not bound to hold, as a matter of domestic law, that s133(1ZA) was compatible with Article 6(2).

To this, Burnett LJ paid short shrift:

I do not accept the submission that a legal proposition arrived at by different judges applying variable reasoning is thereby deprived of having binding effect if it is impossible to discover a majority that adheres to the same reasoning in stating a proposition of law. (para 25)

With the Supreme Court sitting with five, seven or nine justices, this must be correct both as a matter of law and a matter of pragmatism.

At its core, this case emphasises that the right to compensation under s133 of the 1988 Act does not require the claimant to prove his innocence. Instead, the Secretary of State must be satisfied as to the link between the new facts and the applicant’s innocence before he is required to pay compensation under the 1988 Act.

The refusal of compensation on the basis that the statutory criteria are not established does not carry any implication that the person is in fact guilty. Yet, one must wonder whether Burnett LJ’s words might be relayed back to Mr Gove as possible fuel for an argument that the Human Rights Act should be ditched. A more accurate analysis might see this case as a demonstration of the important checking and balancing roles performed by our courts.

Leanne Woods is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts





  1. Jeremy Wickins says:

    The State can wrongly deprive someone of their liberty and then, when shown to be wrong, release the innocent person into a state of poverty, and somehow this is right?? Once again, this is proof that the ECtHR does a far better job of protecting people than domestic courts and venal politicians.

  2. Simon Carne says:

    (As I non-lawyer) I understand this blog – especially point 2 – to be saying that the UK court has rejected Strasbourg’s interpretation of Art 6(2) and decided in favour of the UK Government. Does it follow that, if the claimants are minded to take the matter to Strasbourg, they might well succeed?

  3. John says:

    Have Nealon and/or Hallam – or their legal representative/s – indicated they will appeal against this decision?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: