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 3 Version 4
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 ruled he failed to meet the test which would entitle him to compensation.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 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.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.
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.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'Flawed' decision
Mr George's case hung on their definition, which was whether a reasonable jury, given the evidence, would not convict him - which is not the same same as proving that he was innocent. It followed a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in May 2011 which redefined the legal meaning of what amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not when it comes to compensation claims for people whose convictions have been quashed - the government sets a very high bar.
In essence, the wrongfully convicted have to show there's no existing evidence on which they could be found guilty - that they are "clearly innocent". Unless all the key evidence in the case has been demolished at their appeal they're unlikely to succeed.
Those who have had a retrial, after their conviction was overturned, will also probably lose out. The grounds were widened a little by the Supreme Court in May 2011, which gave renewed hope to Barry George that his damages claim might succeed.
But the High Court's decision has closed the door - unless the Supreme Court justices can be persuaded to reconsider the issues.
Previously, compensation was only awarded for a miscarriage of justice if a claimant could effectively prove they were innocent.
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.
At the High Court, judges Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin ruled that Mr George and three others had failed this test.At the High Court, judges Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin ruled that Mr George and three others had failed this test.
They said: "There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder."They said: "There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder."
Therefore they said he did not meet the test that would entitle him to compensation.
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".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.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.Nicholas Baird, said Mr George and his family were "terribly disappointed" and wanted to "reflect" on the judgment before making any comment.
Unsafe conviction
Miss Dando, 37, was shot dead on her doorstep in Fulham, west London, in April 1999.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.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.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.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".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.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.