Full Breakdown
UK Miscarriage of Justice Compensation: Brian Buckle’s Rejected Claim Highlights 2014 Law Change
7/6/2026, 8:53:28 PM
Buckle's Rejected Compensation Claim
Brian Buckle, cleared in a 2023 retrial, applied for compensation under the Criminal Cases Review Commission scheme. The Ministry of Justice denied the claim because the 2014 amendment now requires claimants to prove they did not commit the crime, a standard Buckle cannot meet without DNA or CCTV evidence.
2014 Legal Change and Its Intended Purpose
The 2014 amendment shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the claimant, replacing the “beyond reasonable doubt” test with a requirement to prove innocence. A Ministry of Justice assessment said the change would “lessen the burden on taxpayers.” Scotland and Northern Ireland retain separate compensation schemes. In 2024 the government asked the Law Commission to review compensation for wrongful convictions; in February 2025 the commission issued provisional proposals to revert the rule and said the compensation chapter will be published by the end of 2026.
Official Statements & Responses
MP Andrew Lake vowed to raise Buckle’s case in Parliament and hold ministers to account. Minister Vullo defended the amendment as intentional. The Ministry of Justice said it will review the Law Commission’s findings before acting. Davies-Jones expressed sorrow over Buckle’s second denial and noted broader questions about the scheme.
Criticism & Opposition
Lake called Buckle’s case “one of the clearest injustices.” Vullo’s comment that the law was drafted to ensure “almost everybody was turned down for compensation” suggested deliberate restriction. Andrew Malkinson, freed after 17 years, called the system “not fit for purpose.”
Implications for Wrongfully Convicted Individuals
If the proposals pass, claimants denied under the post-2014 rule—including Post Office Horizon victims—could receive compensation, addressing delays highlighted by interim payments.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The Ministry of Justice calls the amendment a fiscal safeguard; critics say it was deliberately restrictive. No public data quantify claimants excluded since 2014, leaving the scale unknown.
Verbatim Quotes
- “I'm not going to let this lie. If that means that I'm to drag ministers to the House of Commons or Westminster Hall, and table questions until they finally do the right thing, then so be it.” — Andrew Lake, MP
- “It's not by mistake, it's intentional,” — Vullo, Minister
- “not fit for purpose” — Andrew Malkinson, Wrongfully Convicted Individual
- “Davies-Jones said she was deeply sorry to hear that Buckle's application had been unsuccessful again and recognised there were wider questions about the compensation scheme.” — Davies-Jones, Deputy Minister
What's Next
The Law Commission’s final report, due by late 2026, will decide whether the pre-2014 burden of proof returns and whether reforms apply retroactively. Parliamentary scrutiny, led by MPs such as Lake, is expected to intensify as public interest grows.
