Andrew Adams - public statement on Supreme Court judgment
Today (Wednesday 11th May 2011) the Supreme Court ruled in the joined appeals of Mr Adams, Mr McCartney and Mr MacDermott that people will receive statutory compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 if the Justice Secretary accepts that a new fact has so undermined the evidence against them that no conviction could possibly be based upon the evidence in their cases (i.e. in each case no reasonable jury properly directed, could convict them). The Court also found that Andrew Adams does not fall within this new definition. Andrew Adams responded to the ruling as follows:
'I welcome the fact that the majority of the Supreme Court has not agreed with the Justice Secretary's proposal to solely compensate those people who he decides have been completely exonerated of the crime they were wrongly convicted of.
I also welcome the fact that the Court overwhelmingly accepted that the evidence that my legal team failed to examine in 1992/1993, which was finally put forward at my (second) appeal in 2006, was a 'new or newly discovered fact', as this clears up the law on this point and will help other claimants under s133.
But I am bitterly disappointed that the words of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in my case - that it was 'not to be taken as finding that if there had been no such failures [to put all the evidence to the original jury] that [I] would inevitably have been acquitted' - have effectively ruled me out of being accepted for compensation within the new definition. I maintain my innocence of the murder of Jack Royal - as I have from day 1.
The Supreme Court's new definition of the people that come within s133 is very limited - the Court itself acknowledged that some innocent people will remain excluded from compensation. <> I am one such victim.
I congratulate Mr McCartney and Mr MacDermott on the fact that the new definition has been found by the Court to be wide enough to cover their shocking cases
But getting over the hurdle of winning an 'out of time' appeal conclusively on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact should be sufficient to be accepted as a victim of miscarriage of justice within the meaning of s.133.
I am particularly disappointed by the rejection of my arguments on the presumption of innocence. I will now pursue those arguments in the European Court of Human Rights, because I believe that all decisions by the state based on my acquittal must respect the presumption of innocence, which this new test does not do.'
Hickman & Rose solicitors<> Website: http://www.hickmanandrose.co.uk
1. Per Lord Brown @ paragraph 250 (dissenting) - 'Even on the majority's test, of course, some who are innocent will be excluded.'
2. Hickman & Rose is a niche city firm with a criminal defence team and civil department. The civil team is renowned for its work in seeking public and private law remedies in the UK and other jurisdictions on behalf of victims of crime or other victims of the abuse of power by agents of the state connected to the criminal justice system. The combined resources of the civil and criminal teams position the firm uniquely to fight for justice on behalf of their clients.
Daniel Machover | Partner | Civil Litigation department
(Direct Tel 020 7702 5334 | ( Mobile 07773 341096 | Direct fax 0872 0222415
Hickman and Rose | Aylesbury House, 17-18 Aylesbury Street, London EC1R 0DB