Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

My Lords, miscarriages of justice have a devastating impact on those who suffer them. It is no exaggeration to say that such people are in fact victims of the state, so it is right that the state should support those people in rebuilding their lives.

Although miscarriages of justices are, thankfully, rare, they do occur. When they do, it is vital that the criminal justice system learns lessons in order to minimise the risk of them happening again and that we support those people whose lives have been affected. Justice for the wrongly convicted is vital to the Government’s ambition to restore confidence in the criminal justice system as part of their Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government.

With the introduction of this instrument, we are taking action to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice will continue to be appropriately compensated, while keeping in mind the wider financial context. There are two compensation schemes: one relates to convictions in the civilian justice system, while the other relates to convictions by a court martial. Both have caps on the maximum compensation that can be paid for a miscarriage of justice. They have not been changed since their introduction in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

The purpose of this instrument is to increase the maximum amount under both schemes by 30%. This means that where an individual has spent at least 10 years in prison, the maximum amount that they can receive will increase from £1 million to £1.3 million. In all other cases, the maximum amount will increase from £500,000 to £650,000. The Government consider this a substantial increase. Of course, these compensation schemes are just one route by which an individual can receive compensation for a wrongful conviction; for example, applicants can also seek further compensation by bringing civil claims against public bodies if they have been at fault in such a way that it has caused the miscarriage of justice.

I am now going to deal with each scheme in a little more detail. For those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice in the civilian criminal justice system, the payment of compensation is governed by Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Applications for compensation under this scheme are determined and the compensation will be paid by the responsible devolved Government.

In practice, this means that the Secretary of State for Justice is responsible for cases in England and Wales, Scottish Ministers are responsible for cases in Scotland and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland is responsible for cases in Northern Ireland. This reflects the position that miscarriages of justice compensation are a transferred matter. There is a small number of cases in Northern Ireland involving sensitive national security information for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has responsibility.

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box on her first appearance. I welcome the fact that such an experienced lawyer now holds this position.

I turn now to the substance of the debate; the Minister has explained everything in such lucid detail that I can go straight to the two points that I want to raise, without going into the background. The limit was fixed in 2008 and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit, observed, the limit is being raised by only 30% whereas, unfortunately, inflation has been very much higher. We have the privilege of having the Financial Secretary to the Treasury here in the Room, and he will no doubt be very pleased to see that the Ministry of Justice is taking such good care of the scarce resources of the country.

When the previous Labour Administration were in power in 2008, they thought that the limits set out then were fair and reasonable and reflected the public position at the time. Is there a reason why we cannot have the same position today and therefore raise the amounts? As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was told, there has never been a payment of the maximum amount, and only very few payments of the lesser amount. Is there therefore a real difficulty in being parsimonious—which is no doubt appreciated by His Majesty’s Treasury—in relation to these amounts? Could this be looked at again?

That takes me to my second question. The Ministry of Justice is in the unfortunate position of having a number of instruments and other pieces of legislation where limits are set, and it is very important that these are kept under regular review. There have been occasions when the ministry has failed to do so. Does the ministry now have a proper schedule for reviewing this and making certain that we do not have a very long period of time, such as that which has elapsed since 2008, before this kind of limit is reviewed? It may be that the Minister will want to take some time to investigate this, but I hope that there is a system in place for such limits to be looked at.

I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in welcoming the Minister to the Dispatch Box.

Our legal system is based on the principle of fairness. This country prides itself on its judiciary. Trial for serious offences by judge and jury is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. The law exists to right wrongs and to create and maintain a system in which honest subjects can live their lives under the even-handed protection of the law. However, those who suffer miscarriages of justice under the same system must be compensated fairly. A legal system without the means of self-correction is devoid of trust and justice.

We on this side of the Committee support the measures brought forward today. Compensation for those wronged by the system must be fair and proportionate. It is not just that those wrongly convicted and imprisoned have not had the maximum compensation increased for nearly 17 years; the onus is on the justice system to correct its mistakes and increase compensation payments as time passes. It was in the same spirit that, as my honourable friend in the other place the Shadow Minister for Justice noted, the former Lord Chancellor removed the compensation guidance that allowed deductions for living expenses saved while in prison. The justice system must be seen to correct its own mistakes, which is what this instrument aims to do. This is why we support it.

However, we have two qualifications. First, these measures increase the maximum available payments by only 30%. The caps have not been increased, as we have heard, since 2008, since when consumer price index inflation has shown a rise of around 64%. That is a hefty shortfall. More than anything, this is a matter of principle. While we agree with this step to increase maximum compensation payments, we do not endorse or agree with the Ministry of Justice’s reasoning that raising the limit in line with inflation going forward, or indeed looking back, would be to pay too little regard to the public purse.

The Under-Secretary of State’s own statistics demonstrate the unreal nature of this approach. From 2016 to 2024, of 133 compensation applicants, only 39 were awarded compensation, at a total cost of £2.4 million. No one reached the £1 million maximum threshold and only five or fewer reached £500,000. We are talking about modest sums for people whose lives have been gravely damaged by the state’s failures. Applicants are not receiving huge sums. Indeed, to increase awards in line with CPI inflation would not pose a risk to public finances, given the small number of claimants who reach the higher levels of compensation payments and the figures I have outlined. Such a change would be a start in reaffirming the underlying trust that our legal system requires to function properly. So I ask the Minister to consider taking this step in future in order to show that society believes that those it has wronged should be fairly compensated: that is, there should be an annual review and, in principle, an uplift in line with inflation based on the CPI index.

Finally, I take the opportunity that today offers to raise the issue of the test that applicants must pass to qualify for compensation at all. As the Minister said, they are, after all, victims of the state. It is not enough that their conviction has been quashed, particularly when they have spent many years in prison, with the loss of their liberty, their family and their reputation—everything. Yet, having had their convictions quashed on the grounds of a miscarriage at the trial itself, they are required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were innocent. But if the original trial had been fair, it goes without saying that they would have been acquitted and not imprisoned, because the Crown would have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty. So, at present, someone who should not have been in prison at all has then to prove that they are innocent by applying a test and standard that is the opposite to that which would have applied if the trial had not been a miscarriage. I invite the Minister to say something about what the Government will do to remedy this lamentable state of affairs.

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I shall start with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The last time that I was answering questions from the noble and learned Lord, I was in the Court of Appeal and he was the Lord Chief Justice, and I have to say that I rather quake at the sound of his voice. I am very grateful to him and I appreciate the importance of the points that he makes.

As to whether there is a proper schedule relating to reviews of this, I am afraid I am going to repeat what I said in my opening remarks about the fact that the Law Commission is looking at this and it would be unwise of the Government to commit themselves to anything, or indeed to start considering it, until they have seen what kind of a package the Law Commission suggests. If noble Lords will forgive me, that is going to be my answer at this stage.

On why a decision was not made to increase the amount by the rate of inflation, I shall deal with that in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in a moment. I am afraid I am going to disappoint him in relation to his first point about the test, as it were, the gateway for eligibility, and say to him again that the Law Commission is looking at it, and I am not going to pre-empt what it is going to say. We are very much looking forward to its report. It has asked for views on compensation for those who have had their convictions quashed. It will be interesting to see what it says. Its initial findings are due in 2026.

On the point about inflation made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and I have known each other for a very long time and therefore I am going to make this point in as gentle a way as I can. He made the point that for 17 years, there has been no increase in payments for miscarriages of justice. I think he knows what I am going to say. For 14 of those years, the party opposite was in power, and it did not raise them by any per cent, far less the rate of inflation. We have done so, and we say that it is a substantial increase.