AN ex-postman who spent 17 years in prison for a conviction that was overturned has had his compensation claim rejected.
Victor Nealon was convicted in 1997 of the attempted rape of a woman in Redditch.
Mr Nealon, originally from Dublin, was given a life sentence after his trial at Hereford Crown Court and served 17 years in jail – 10 more than the seven-year minimum term, after he persisted in asserting he was innocent.
He was set free after appeal judges ruled that fresh evidence made his conviction unsafe.
Mr Nealon previously brought legal action at the High Court with another former prisoner, Sam Hallam, who had a murder conviction overturned.
They brought action over the Justice Secretary’s refusal to award them payouts.
But their compensation bids were rejected on the basis that it was not the case a “new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice”.
After losing their challenges in the UK courts, including at the Supreme Court in 2019, the pair took their case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, claiming the basis of the compensation refusal violated their right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
But in a judgment this week a panel of judges at the ECHR ruled with a majority of 12 to 5 that there had been no violation of Mr Hallam and Mr Nealon’s human rights.
The pair’s lawyers argued they had suffered a breach of part of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says everyone charged with a criminal offence should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Sam Hallam (Image: PA)
However, lawyers for the UK government said the decision-maker “was required to decide on compensation in accordance with criteria which focused only on the specific effect of a new or newly discovered fact, rather than making a general assessment of guilt or innocence”.
In their decision dismissing the pair’s challenge, the panel of judges at Strasbourg ruled: “It could not be said that the refusal of compensation by the Justice Secretary imputed criminal guilt to the applicant by reflecting the opinion that he or she was guilty to the criminal standard of committing the criminal offence, thereby suggesting that the criminal proceedings should have been determined differently.
“To find in the negative that it could not be shown to the very high standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt that an applicant did not commit an offence – by reference to a new or newly discovered fact or otherwise – is not tantamount to a positive finding that he or she did commit the offence.”
In a statement shared via JUSTICE, Mr Nealon said: “For seventeen years I fought a case of which I am entirely innocent. Over ten years later I have not received any compensation from the government for the life I lost, nor the mental agony inflicted on me (from deaths of parents and loss of relationships).
"This is not justice, and I am appalled by the decision of the court today.”
Sam Hallam, from east London, served more than seven years after he was sentenced to life as a teenager following his conviction at the Old Bailey in 2005 for the murder of a trainee chef. Mr Hallam’s conviction was quashed in 2012.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here