This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21195269

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Barry George loses compensation case Barry George loses compensation case
(35 minutes later)
Barry George, wrongly convicted of the murder of BBC TV presenter Jill Dando, has lost a bid for compensation.Barry George, wrongly convicted of the murder of BBC TV presenter Jill Dando, has lost a bid for compensation.
Two High Court judges said he failed to meet the test which would entitle him to compensation. href="http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/ali-lawless-george-others-judgment-25012013" >Two High Court judges ruled he failed to meet the test which would entitle him to compensation.
Three other people whose convictions had been quashed also failed to win compensation.Three other people whose convictions had been quashed also failed to win compensation.
But one man, Ian Lawless, who spent eight years in prison for murder before being freed by the Court of Appeal in 2009, was successful. But Ian Lawless, jailed for eight years for murder before being freed by the Court of Appeal in 2009, was successful and will have his case reconsidered.
He will now have his case reconsidered. Mr George, 52, who spent eight years in prison before being cleared after a retrial, was one of five test cases to decide who was now entitled to payments.
It followed a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in May 2011.
The judgement redefined the legal meaning of what amounted to a miscarriage of justice after debating when compensation should be awarded to wrongly-convicted people.
'Flawed' decision
Previously, compensation was only awarded for a miscarriage of justice if a claimant could effectively prove they were innocent.Previously, compensation was only awarded for a miscarriage of justice if a claimant could effectively prove they were innocent.
But a Supreme Court hearing in 2011 widened this by saying that if a person could prove that no set of circumstances could possibly lead to their conviction by a jury, they could get compensation. But the nine Supreme Court judges widened this by saying that if a person could prove that no set of circumstances could possibly lead to their conviction by a jury, they could get compensation.
In effect saying that they did not have to prove they were innocent, but did have to prove that any jury which would consider their case would not convict them. At the High Court, judges Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin ruled that Mr George and three others had failed this test.
The judges at the High Court ruled that Mr George's case did not pass this second test. They said: "There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder."
Mr George's lawyers had argued the justice secretary's decision to deny him damages of a maximum of £500,000 was "flawed" and "contrary to natural justice".
They indicated they would seek to appeal to the Supreme Court - a so-called "leapfrog" appeal.
Nicholas Baird, said Mr George and his family were "terribly disappointed" and wanted to "reflect" on the judgment before making any comment.
Miss Dando, 37, was shot dead on her doorstep in Fulham, west London, in April 1999.
Mr George was convicted in 2001 but an Old Bailey retrial took place in 2008 after doubt was cast on the reliability of gunshot residue evidence.
Unsafe conviction
Mr Lawless was jailed for life in 2002 after confessing to the murder of retired sea captain Alf Wilkins on the Yarborough estate in Grimsby, Lincolnshire.
His trial heard he had made various "confessions" to third parties, including regulars in a pub and a taxi driver.
But in 2009, his conviction was ruled unsafe after fresh medical evidence revealed he had a "pathological need for attention".
The High Court judges ruled that in his case the decision to refuse compensation was legally flawed and must be reconsidered in the light of their judgement.