ANDREW ADAMS AND OTHERS: COMPENSATION; FATE OF WRONGLY CONVICTED IN HANDS OF BRITISH SUPREME COURT DECISION EXPECTED THIS WEEK; THE GUARDIAN;

"Britain's most senior judges will decide this week whether hundreds of people whose wrongful convictions have been quashed by the court of appeal are truly innocent. In a landmark ruling, the supreme court will define the meaning of a miscarriage of justice and decide when individuals are entitled to official compensation.

Millions of pounds in compensation are at stake in a case triggered by government refusal over the last five years to pay financial redress to victims of miscarriages of justice, many of whom have spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

Andrew Adams, 41, who spent 14 years in jail after being wrongly convicted of murder, is the lead appellant in the case, which lawyers say is the most important constitutional decision to be made by the supreme court to date.

His murder conviction was quashed in January 2007 on the grounds that his defence team did not use crucial evidence available to it. A year later he was refused compensation by the Home Office, a decision he has been fighting ever since.

Other appellants are Barry George, who was refused official compensation after being acquitted at a retrial of the murder of the BBC presenter Jill Dando, and two men whose convictions for membership of the IRA and murder at the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland have been quashed.........

Nick Baird, for Barry George, said: "This will be the most important constitutional decision handed down by the supreme court. What the Ministry of Justice says is that for there to be a miscarriage of justice the person convicted and acquitted needs subsequent to that to prove their innocence in order to be entitled to compensation.

"We say, how do you do that? How do you prove a negative? It is contrary to everything that I have learnt is embodied in the criminal justice system."

CRIME CORRESPONDENT; SANDRA LAVILLE: THE GUARDIAN;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Britain's most senior judges will decide this week whether hundreds of people whose wrongful convictions have been quashed by the court of appeal are truly innocent," the Guardian story by crime correspondent Sandra Laville published on May 8, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Miscarriage of justice: supreme court to rule on its true meaning; Millions of pounds in compensation for people wrongfully convicted hinges on decision by nine judges."

"In a landmark ruling, the supreme court will define the meaning of a miscarriage of justice and decide when individuals are entitled to official compensation," the story continues.

"Millions of pounds in compensation are at stake in a case triggered by government refusal over the last five years to pay financial redress to victims of miscarriages of justice, many of whom have spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

Andrew Adams, 41, who spent 14 years in jail after being wrongly convicted of murder, is the lead appellant in the case, which lawyers say is the most important constitutional decision to be made by the supreme court to date.

His murder conviction was quashed in January 2007 on the grounds that his defence team did not use crucial evidence available to it. A year later he was refused compensation by the Home Office, a decision he has been fighting ever since.

Other appellants are Barry George, who was refused official compensation after being acquitted at a retrial of the murder of the BBC presenter Jill Dando, and two men whose convictions for membership of the IRA and murder at the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland have been quashed.

The ruling, on Wednesday, will have reverberations throughout the legal world and will determine whether compensation should be paid in several high-profile miscarriage of justice cases, including that of Sîon Jenkins, whose conviction for killing his foster daughter, Billie-Jo Jenkins, was overturned by the court of appeal, and subsequently juries failed to reach verdicts in two retrials.

Lawyers for Adams told all nine supreme court judges that it was unlawful of the justice secretary to refuse in January 2008 to award Adams statutory compensation as a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Daniel Machover, who represents Adams, said: "We hope that the ruling will outline definitively what a miscarriage of justice is. It is a fact that a person is entitled to a presumption of innocence if they have their conviction overturned on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact.

"The question is whether that presumption of innocence is enough to say, this is therefore a miscarriage of justice and everyone who has suffered a miscarriage of justice is entitled to compensation. That is what we are arguing: that the presumption of innocence equals the right to compensation."

The case focuses on the Gogovernment's refusal to pay compensation to individuals who have applied since 2006, when changes were made to the system.

Lawyers have told the supreme court that the government is wrongly adopting a narrow definition of miscarriage of justice which requires claimants to prove clear innocence in order to receive compensation. Schedules suggest up to 200 individuals could be affected. On average, around 40 individuals who have had convictions quashed or been acquitted at retrials have applied for official compensation each year since 2006. In the past year, only one out of 37 who applied was awarded the money.

Nick Baird, for Barry George, said: "This will be the most important constitutional decision handed down by the supreme court. What the Ministry of Justice says is that for there to be a miscarriage of justice the person convicted and acquitted needs subsequent to that to prove their innocence in order to be entitled to compensation.

"We say, how do you do that? How do you prove a negative? It is contrary to everything that I have learnt is embodied in the criminal justice system."

George spent eight years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of Dando's murder in April 1999. He won his second appeal and the court ordered a retrial, at which he was acquitted.

The Ministry of Justice has continued to argue that a miscarriage of justice occurs only where someone is eventually found to be "clearly innocent". "This is an ongoing legal matter," an MoJ spokeswoman said. "We will not be making any comment until the judgment is given.""

• This article was amended on 10 May 2011. The original said Sîon Jenkins' conviction for killing his foster daughter, Billie-Jo Jenkins, was overturned after juries failed to reach verdicts in two retrials. This has been corrected.

The story can be found at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/08/miscarriage-justice-surpeme-court-meaning

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;