Adams, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Compensation under section 133(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires both a qualifying new or newly discovered fact and a miscarriage of justice proved to the statutory standard. Material already available for inspection before trial is not readily characterised as new or newly discovered merely because defence lawyers failed to inspect it. An unsafe conviction caused by inadequate representation does not satisfy the miscarriage-of-justice requirement where the appellate court has not found that the defendant was clearly innocent or should clearly not have been convicted.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to award compensation under section 133(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. His murder conviction had been quashed by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division after it found that defence lawyers had failed to use three categories of unused material and that the cumulative failures rendered the verdict unsafe.

The Court of Appeal had not found that an acquittal would inevitably have followed. The issues were whether the material constituted a new or newly discovered fact and whether it showed beyond reasonable doubt that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had to establish both statutory conditions under section 133(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
2. The court was bound by R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Mullen [2004] UKHL 18, [2005] 1 AC 1. The majority preferred the narrower construction of miscarriage of justice, requiring a clear case in which the person’s innocence was clearly acknowledged. Even on the broader approach discussed by Lord Bingham, the claimant could not show that he was demonstrably innocent or should clearly not have been convicted.
3. The court declined to decide generally when facts are new or newly discovered. On the facts, the material had existed and been available for inspection before trial. The defence team’s failure to inspect it did not make it new factually or legally.
4. The Court of Appeal’s finding that the trial was unfair did not alter that conclusion. The claim therefore failed.