A person locked up for 17 years for a rape he didn't commit has described a rule requiring him to cowl dwelling prices for his time spent in jail as "abhorrent" - because the UK's justice minister agreed to scrap it.
Andrew Malkinson had his conviction quashed last month after contemporary DNA proof emerged linking one other potential suspect to the crime.
But the 57-year-old was left "sickened" by the thought of paying for "board and lodging" from any compensation he obtains beneath the federal government's miscarriage of justice scheme - which itself caps funds at £1m.
Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC scrapped the rule with speedy impact on Sunday within the wake of Mr Malkinson's case.
Speaking to Sky's crime correspondent Martin Brunt, Mr Malkinson mentioned: "I feel it [the rule] is abhorrent.
"It is a very silly, very vindictive, actually. It is completely necessary."
Mr Malkinson welcomed news it was being scrapped - and in a separate interview, he had mentioned it was "the first of many changes we need in our justice system to protect the innocent".
He additionally criticised the police's preliminary investigation and his conviction by majority verdict - which means not all 12 jurors agreed he was responsible.
"It took me 20 years to get justice because the miscarriage of justice watchdog does not investigate and is not accountable," he mentioned.
"It now may take me years to get any compensation because, even though my conviction has been overturned, the state now requires me to prove my innocence all over again.
"No one ought to need to undergo what I've been via. I hope Alex Chalk will not cease right here in bringing within the adjustments we have to make our justice system safer for the harmless, and extra accountable for its errors."
Read extra:Unfair for wrongfully convicted inmates to pay back prison costs, Rishi Sunak say
Previously, unbiased assessors might make deductions primarily based on "saved living expenses" corresponding to hire or mortgage funds, though this hasn't occurred over the previous decade, in accordance with the Ministry of Justice.
Mr Chalk has up to date the steerage, which dates again to 2006, to take away the deductions from future funds made beneath the scheme.
He mentioned: "Fairness is a core pillar of our justice system and it is not right that victims of devastating miscarriages of justice can have deductions made for saved living expenses.
"This frequent sense change will guarantee victims don't face paying twice for crimes they didn't commit."
The maximum payment under the miscarriage of justice compensation scheme is £1m for more than 10 years' imprisonment.
Mr Malkinson's lawyer Emily Bolton, the director of charity law practice Appeal, said that the maximum award would equate to £58,824 per year he spent wrongly imprisoned - some £27,760 less than an MP's basic £86,584 salary.
"The state robbed Andy of the very best years of his life," she said.
"Changing this one rule just isn't an ample response. We want a whole overhaul of the appeals system, which took twenty years to acknowledge this apparent miscarriage of justice."
Mr Malkinson added: "It sounds, maybe, to the common layperson like some huge cash. But that represents practically twenty years of dwelling hell and misplaced alternatives, and misplaced love, and every little thing else that makes life treasured."
Sir Bob Neill, the Tory MP who chairs the Commons Justice Committee, said he was "delighted" that Mr Chalk had "moved so swiftly on this".
"Big credit score to Andrew Malkinson, his household and supporters," he mentioned.
Liberal Democrat justice spokesman Alistair Carmichael mentioned the federal government should now overview previous instances "where people have been forced to pay for saved living expenses after being wrongfully convicted with the view to compensate these individuals fully."
To be eligible for a fee beneath the scheme, somebody should apply for compensation inside two years of being pardoned or having their conviction reversed because of the invention of a newly found truth, which demonstrates "beyond reasonable doubt" they didn't commit the offence.
Please share by clicking this button!
Visit our site and see all other available articles!