Barry George in new payout bid over Jill Dando
THE man who was wrongly convicted of murdering TV presenter Jill Dando is to make a fresh claim for compensation after a landmark ruling by top judges, his solicitor said last night.
Unemployed Barry George spent eight years in jail before having his conviction quashed after prosecution evidence was called into question.
Yesterday a ruling by the Supreme Court paved the way for claims by people who had their conviction overturned but were denied compensation.
Mr George is among a number of victims who could now be in line for compensation – at a potential cost of millions of pounds. The Supreme Court redefined the legal meaning of what constituted a “miscarriage of justice” after debating when compensation should be paid to people wrongly convicted of crime.
Mr George, 51, of Fulham, west London, was cleared of killing the 37-year-old BBC presenter outside her home in April 1999 following a re-trial.
But two years ago he failed in an attempt to gain £1.4million in compensation from the Ministry of Justice.
Unemployed Barry George spent eight years in jail before having his conviction quashed
Mr George’s solicitor, Nicholas Baird, said: “We are encouraged by the ruling. We will be writing to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and asking him to reconsider Barry George’s claim.”
The Supreme Court ruled that victims of “unsafe” criminal convictions do not need to prove their innocence to qualify for compensation.
A panel of nine judges set a new miscarriage of justice “test” in rulings on separate appeals by three men who said they were wrongly refused compensation after their murder convictions were overturned.
The judges ruled that a miscarriage of justice had 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”.
Court president Lord Phillips said the new “test” would not guarantee that all those entitled to compensation were “in fact innocent”.
But he said it would ensure that when innocent defendants were convicted on discredited evidence they were not “precluded” from obtaining compensation because they could not prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
