Associate Tenant Mary Cowe has written a blog for Oxford Human Rights Hub which looks at questions being asked following the Andrew Malkinson case on why successful appellants in the criminal court should have to prove their innocence in a separate process to claim compensation.
Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. The Criminal Cases Review Commission twice considered his case before referring it for appeal after fresh DNA testing linked another man to the crime. Andrew Malkinson was reported in the BBC saying that he would “expect compensation” but was currently “living on benefits”.
Whilst Mr Malkinson is likely to receive compensation given that another suspect is now being investigated, Mary examines in the blog the position of applicants who cannot prove their innocence because of misconduct or negligence on the part of the prosecuting authorities. Mary examines the applicability of Article 6, the extent to which the domestic and European courts agree that only certain cases merit compensation, and the difficult balance to be struck in cases which are less clear cut than that of Mr Malkinson. Mary argues for modest reform to preserve a focus on the duty of the State to prove its case in the criminal trial itself and the need for the appeal system itself to be better resourced.
Read full piece here: [Oxford Human Rights Hub]