Our thanks to Len for this. An extract:

“Buckle’s compensation claim was rejected due to a subtle but important change in the law in 2014.

Previously, compensation was paid out if the claimant had established, beyond reasonable doubt, that any reasonable jury could not convict on the evidence provided.

In Buckle’s retrial the jury found him “not guilty” after hearing new witnesses and forensic evidence, which would have made him eligible for a payout.

But since 2014, compensation is only paid to those who can prove they did not commit the crime, which Vullo [J4MB: Buckle’s barrister] said was impossible as no DNA or CCTV evidence exists to conclusively prove Buckle’s innocence.

“If you were to ask me to draft a piece of legislation that would ensure that almost everybody was turned down for compensation, I’d draft something similar to this [current law],” said Vullo.

“It’s not by mistake, it’s intentional,” he claimed.”

—————————-

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.

Our YouTube channel is here.