The term miscarriage of justice is frequently and notoriously invoked, but very little has been done by way of decisions clarifying the term. The United Kingdom Supreme Court appears to have come to a settled definition of the term; at least in connection with post-conviction claims of innocence, and thence, for compensation thereof. Readhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/11/barry-george-compensated-supreme-court?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
In a judgement given on the 11th of May, 2011 the UK Supreme Court formulated the test in determining whether a miscarriage of justice has occured. The court said that there would be a miscarriage of justice - ‘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’. Read full judgement herehttp://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0012_Judgment.pdf . It is however going to be very difficult (but the decision can be distinguished) to apply this in every concieveable situation and circumstance, except to say that the decision should serve as a starting point when attempting to apply it beyong innocence cases. It should be noted that the decisions itself was arrived at by a very narrow majority, leaving the Supreme Court in a position to ‘possibly’ reverse itself someday. The decision left some of the appellants in this case still clearly dissatisfied. Barry George for instance.
