Key Facts
- •Ahmed Mohamed Ali Adan (Claimant) was convicted in 2004 of two counts of indecent assault and spent over 13 years in prison.
- •His conviction was quashed in 2021 due to newly discovered DNA evidence linking a mobile phone found at the scene to another person, 'S'.
- •The Claimant applied for compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which was refused by the Secretary of State for Justice (Defendant).
- •The Claimant challenged the refusal through judicial review, arguing irrationality.
- •The new DNA evidence, while undermining the conviction's safety, did not definitively prove the Claimant's innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Principles
Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides compensation for miscarriages of justice where new evidence proves innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 133
Following R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice, 'miscarriage of justice' under section 133 is limited to cases where new evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not commit the offence (Category 1).
R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18
Judicial review of a Secretary of State's decision under section 133 assesses rationality: whether the decision is within the range of reasonable decisions, and whether there are flaws in the reasoning process.
R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin)
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was dismissed.
The newly discovered evidence, while casting doubt on the Claimant's conviction, did not prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. The Secretary of State's decision was deemed rational, even with omissions in the assessment document, as there remained reasonable doubt about the attacker's identity.