Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

The award is under Criminal Justice Act 1988 s 133 (which is at http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/ num_act/cja1988172/s133.html), and is indeed in the context of assessing an award for a miscarriage of justice.

Assessment is by Home Office assessor, and the assessment can then be challenged as a public law matter. The principles applied are sui generis, though I suspect that personal injuries lawyers will find them not unfamiliar. The damages include both a pecuniary element and a non-pecuniary element (pain, suffering, humiliation etc).

The precise issue here is whether provision of board, lodging etc in prison can be referred to in assessing pecuniary loss - so that a lower amount would be payable on the ground that the prisoner has not had to find their own food, accommodation etc. As I understand it, there is no question of the state claiming money from the ex-prisoners, they are simply trying to reduce the amount they will have to pay in compensation.

The only detailed discussion of damages so far appears to be O'Brien and others, R (on the application of) v. Independent Assessor [2003] EWHC 855 (Admin) (16 April 2003), http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/ EWHC/Admin/2003/855.html. This contains a thorough discussion of the relevant principles, include whether there can be a deduction as suggested. Maurice Kay J held that there could not: paras [35]-[39]. The Home Secretary appears, from Lionel's newspaper report, to be challenging this on appeal.

Steve Hedley
Faculty of Law, University College, Cork

-----Original Message-----
From: Mee, John
Sent: 25 March 2004 09:41
Subject: Re: [RDG:] claims against prisoners

I was wondering also about the context of such claims, which didn't seem totally clear from the newspaper article. It would seem amazing if a person were released on the basis that there had been a miscarriage of justice and then simply presented with a bill for accommodation and food during their incarceration. I wonder whether the claims for food/lodgings arose in the context of a claim for compensation by the prisoner, whereby either (i) the government sought to have the compensation award reduced to the extent of the benefits allegedly received by the prisoner or (ii) following an award of compensation to the prisoner, the government separately sought to recover some of the money back on the basis of having provided benefits to the prisoner. One might find the government's approach in either of the last two scenarios objectionable but it would be in a somewhat different category to a government claim against the prisoner outside the context of already paying compensation to the prisoner (which is how the matter seemed to be presented in some newspaper reports).