The S upreme C ourt on C ompensation for M iscarriages of J ustice: Is it better that ten innocents are denied compensation than one guilty person receives it?

The S upreme C ourt determined that a ‘fresh approach’ was needed in an attempt to bring some clarity to the issue of the eligibility for compensation of those who have had their convictions quashed by the C ourt of A ppeal. The definition that the majority agreed upon was that ‘a new fact will show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred when it so undermines the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it’. This article argues that the judgment suffers from a failure to consider the purpose of the legislation; that it is unclear whether the test is normative or historical and that this presents a particular problem in cases relating to the N orthern Ireland conflict. The C ourt focuses on the guilt of the appellant and excludes from its consideration any notion of culpability by the state, which is a cause for concern.