ANDREW ALLEN AND OTHERS: U.K. SUPREME COURT MAKES IT EASIER FOR WRONGLY CONVICTED PEOPLE TO WIN COMPENSATION; THE ASSOCIATED PRESS;

"On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that compensation was due if newly discovered evidence would have made it impossible to convict. The old standard required the victim to prove his or her innocence.

The court's ruling came in the cases of Raymond McCartney and Eamonn MacDermott, who were convicted of murder and membership in the Irish Republican Army in 1979. Their convictions were quashed in 2007.

The court held that a miscarriage of justice occurred "when a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that the evidence against a defendant has been so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based upon it."

However, the court unanimously rejected a challenge by Andrew Adams, an English man who served 14 years in prison before his murder conviction was overturned. In that case, the court found that a reasonable jury might have convicted Adams even if it had known about evidence which became available later."

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS;

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

"LONDON - Britain's Supreme Court, ruling Wednesday in a case from Northern Ireland, has made it easier for people wrongly convicted of crimes to win compensation," the Associated Press story published earlier today under the heading, "UK court sets new standard on compensation," begins.

"On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that compensation was due if newly discovered evidence would have made it impossible to convict. The old standard required the victim to prove his or her innocence," the story continues.

"The court's ruling came in the cases of Raymond McCartney and Eamonn MacDermott, who were convicted of murder and membership in the Irish Republican Army in 1979. Their convictions were quashed in 2007.

The court held that a miscarriage of justice occurred "when a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that the evidence against a defendant has been so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based upon it."

However, the court unanimously rejected a challenge by Andrew Adams, an English man who served 14 years in prison before his murder conviction was overturned. In that case, the court found that a reasonable jury might have convicted Adams even if it had known about evidence which became available later.

Lord Nicholas Phillips, the president of the court, said the new test would not guarantee that only innocent people receive compensation.

"It will, however, ensure that when innocent defendants are convicted on evidence which is subsequently discredited, they are not precluded from obtaining compensation because they cannot prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt," said Phillips, who added that the standard was "workable in practice."

There was no immediate indication of how many former convicts might benefit."

The story can be found at:

http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/world/article/857271--uk-court-sets-new-standard-on-compensation

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;