Hallam v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2: Upholding Compensation Criteria under ECHR Article 6(2)

Introduction

The case of Hallam v Secretary of State for Justice ([2019] UKSC 2) presents a pivotal assessment of the compatibility between the United Kingdom's statutory provisions governing compensation for quashed convictions and the presumption of innocence as enshrined in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The appellants, Mr. Hallam and Mr. Nealon, had their convictions overturned due to fresh evidence but were subsequently denied compensation by the Secretary of State under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by Section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court deliberated on whether the amended Section 133(1ZA) contravened the ECHR's Article 6(2) by undermining the presumption of innocence. The majority of the court, including Lords Mance, Hale, Wilson, and Hughes, upheld the compatibility of Section 133(1ZA) with Article 6(2), asserting that the statutory criteria for compensation did not infringe upon the accused's right to be presumed innocent. Conversely, dissenting judges, namely Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, and Lord Lloyd-Jones, contended that the statutory requirements effectively burdened appellants with proving their innocence, thereby conflicting with Article 6(2).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced both domestic and European precedents to navigate the complex interplay between compensation statutes and human rights obligations:

• R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice ([2011] UKSC 18): Established that Section 133 did not require proving innocence, thereby initially suggesting compatibility with Article 6(2).
• Allen v United Kingdom (63 EHRR 10): The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Article 6(2) applied in compensation claims and that requiring proof of innocence could violate the presumption of innocence.
• Sekanina v Austria (17 EHRR 221) and Rushiti v Austria (33 EHRR 56): ECtHR decisions emphasizing that compensation proceedings linked to criminal cases must respect the presumption of innocence.
• Ringvold v Norway (Application No 34964/97): Highlighted that imputing criminal liability in civil compensation claims could engage Article 6(2).
• Other ECtHR cases: Including HL v Sweden and Vella v Malta, further shaping the understanding of the link between criminal acquittals and subsequent civil proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal argument hinged on whether Section 133(1ZA), which restricts compensation to cases where a new fact conclusively proves innocence, infringes Article 6(2). The majority reasoned that requiring appellants to demonstrate that they did not commit the offence, based on new evidence, does not equate to undermining an acquittal but rather sets a high threshold for compensation to prevent wrongful payouts. They contended that the role of the compensation scheme is distinct and does not interfere with the criminal presumption of innocence.

The dissenters, however, argued that by imposing an obligation on individuals to prove their innocence to receive compensation, the statute effectively burdens them with the presumption contrary to Article 6(2). They contended that even with statements clarifying that the refusal of compensation does not question the acquittal, the statutory requirement implicates the presumption of innocence.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the intersection of criminal law, compensation schemes, and human rights:

• Compensation Eligibility: Reinforces the stringent criteria for compensation claims, ensuring that only clear cases of wrongful convictions qualify.
• Legislative Clarity: Clarifies the extent to which human rights obligations influence domestic statutory provisions, potentially guiding future legislative reforms.
• Human Rights Integration: Demonstrates the judiciary's role in balancing statutory objectives with international human rights standards, setting a precedent for similar cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 6(2) of the ECHR

Ensures that everyone charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. This principle is fundamental to fair trial standards.

Section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Amended to require that compensation is only payable if a person's conviction is overturned on the grounds that new evidence conclusively proves their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

Categories of Miscarriage of Justice (from Adams)

1. Clear innocence.
2. New evidence that wholly undermines the prosecution's case.
3. New evidence that renders the conviction unsafe—jury might or might not have convicted.
4. Serious procedural errors leading to wrongful conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Hallam v Secretary of State for Justice underscores the delicate balance between providing redress for wrongful convictions and upholding rigorous standards for compensation to prevent unjustified awards. While the majority upholds the statutory framework as compatible with human rights, the dissent highlights essential concerns about the presumption of innocence and the burdens placed on individuals seeking compensation. This judgment not only clarifies the application of human rights in compensation contexts but also sets the stage for ongoing debates and potential reforms in how justice systems reconcile statutory provisions with fundamental human rights.