HC Deb 05 March 1964 vol 690 cc1498-9
10. Mr. G. H. R. Rogers

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will pay compensation to Mr. John Francis Lane in respect of his imprisonment from 5th December, 1962, until 21st June, 1963, in view of the fact that his conviction at London Sessions on two charges was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the latter date in a judgment which held that the summing up was wrong in law, that it contained mistakes of fact, and that it failed to give sufficient weight to the defence evidence.

Mr. Brooke

No, Sir. It is not the practice, save in the most exceptional circumstances, to make payments from public funds to successful appellants. I have been unable to find grounds for treating Mr. Lane exceptionally.

Mr. Rogers

Surely it is clear from the strong language used by the Court of Criminal Appeal that my constituent's loss of liberty for over six months and consequent loss of hundreds of pounds income was due to a grievous error at London Sessions? If that is not a case where compensation should be paid, I should be glad if the Home Secretary will tell me what is.

Mr. Brooke

In this case I understand that the person in question—I do not know his reasons—did not apply for leave to appeal until three months after his conviction. It has been the policy of successive Home Secretaries of all parties to make ex-gratia payments to acquitted persons only when the claimant has suffered hardship through the negligence or misconduct of the police or some other public official. There is no evidence of that in this case, which I have looked into carefully.

Sir G. Nicholson

Surely there have been occasions when people have been imprisoned for long periods and found innocent and payments have been made to them? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that that is only common justice and commonsense when people have suffered hardship—three months in prison is hardship—through mistakes made in the law?

Mr. Brooke

The three months to which I referred were the three months which this person delayed in lodging his appeal. As I explained in answer to the last supplementary question, it has been the practice to make ex-gratia payments where, and only where, the claimant has suffered hardship through negligence or misconduct on the part of the police or some other public official.