Written evidence to be reported to the House
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
1:45 pm
Gareth Crossman: What was interesting about the way that the matter was described was that it seemed to be part of the ongoing rebalancing of the criminal justice debate that has been taking place for many years. The explanatory notes indicated the need to put the compensation payable to victims of miscarriages of justice on an equivalent basis to that paid to people who had suffered injury as a result of criminal injury. I cannot see why the two situations necessarily match up. Having a two-year cap because that matches up with what happens in cases where people have been injured during crimes, has no logic other than it being the same number. It is the same with the way a cap is imposed on criminal injury compensation.
A more appropriate approach would be to view this in the same way as one might approach civil litigation. Of course there should be a limitation period. The idea that someone can turn around many years hence and say, “I want to claim for the loss resulting from this wrongful conviction,” is incorrect, just as it would be for someone who turns around many years after a civil action and says, “I wish to claim.” That is why we have limitation periods. A six-year limitation period as in civil cases would be appropriate. The imposition of a cap, albeit a high cap which I am sure would not often be reached, seems odd when the basis of loss is not one that would generally be capped. Generally the upper limit would be determined by looking at all the factors involved. However, as I said, half a million pounds—which I believe is the cap—is a high amount, so it is not a point that we would press particularly hard.