GRAND CHAMBER
CASE OF NEALON AND HALLAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Applications nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19)
 
JUDGMENT
Art 6 § 2 • Presumption of innocence • Refusal of compensation for a miscarriage of justice, following quashing of applicants’ criminal convictions as “unsafe”, for failing to meet new statutory test introduced after the judgment in Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC] • Art 6 § 2 applicable; no reason to depart from Court’s conclusion in Allen on applicability • Case-law concerning cost issues and compensation claims by a former accused following acquittal revisited • Distinction between acquittals and discontinuances in relevant Court case-law not to be maintained • Defining criterion in all cases whether impugned reasoning and decisions of domestic courts or other authorities in subsequent linked proceedings amounted to an imputation of criminal liability • No right to compensation for a miscarriage of justice under Art 6 § 2 following the quashing of a criminal conviction • Respondent state free to decide how “miscarriage of justice” should be defined and to draw legitimate policy line as to eligibility for compensation following the quashing of a conviction, so long as compensation refusal did not impute criminal guilt to an unsuccessful applicant • Refusal of compensation claims in the instant case did not impute criminal liability to applicants
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
11 June 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. Table of Contents
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Introduction
B. The legislative background
1. The meaning of “miscarriage of justice” in domestic law
2. The Court’s judgment in Allen
3. The follow-up cases
4. The subsequent legislative amendment
C. The factual background
1. The quashing of the applicants’ convictions
2. The applicants’ claims for compensation
3. Proceedings before the Administrative Court
4. Proceedings before the Court of Appeal
5. Proceedings before the Supreme Court
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
A. The United Kingdom
1. Quashing a conviction
2. Compensation for a “miscarriage of justice”
(a) Section 133 of the 1988 Act
(b) Judicial interpretation of “miscarriage of justice”
(i) R(Mullen) v. Secretary of State for the Home 
Department
(ii) R(Adams) v. Secretary of State for Justice
(c) The amendment to section 133 of the 1988 Act
(d) The observations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights
B. International Legal Materials
1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
2. Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention
C. Law and Practice in the Contracting States on the award of compensation following the quashing of a criminal conviction, 
and the concept of “miscarriage of justice”
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Preliminary observations regarding Article 6 § 2 of the Convention
B. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The Government
(b) The applicants
(c) The third party interventions
(i) JUSTICE
(ii) The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (“NIHRC”)
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
(b) Application of the general principles to the facts of the 
case at hand
(c) Conclusions on admissibility
C. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The applicants
(b) The Government
(c) The third party intervenors
(i) JUSTICE
(ii) The NIHRC
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) The statement of general principles in Allen
(b) Application of those general principles in the cases 
following Allen
(c) The approach to be taken in cases concerning the second 
aspect of Article 6 § 2
(d) The application of those principles to the cases at hand

Outcome for Article 6: no_violation