Introduction

Wrongful conviction in Australia represents a significant miscarriage of justice, profoundly affecting the lives of innocent people and their families. These injustices can result from various factors, including police misconduct, unreliable evidence, and flawed legal processes, leading to long-term emotional and psychological distress for those wrongly convicted.

While compensation for wrongful conviction cases is theoretically available, the mechanisms to obtain such compensation are limited and vary across Australian jurisdictions. Except for the Australian Capital Territory, where specific legislation provides for compensation, most states, and territories rely on discretionary ex gratia payments, which often lack transparency and consistency. 

What is a Wrongful Conviction?

Definition and Scenarios of Wrongful Conviction

A wrongful conviction occurs when an individual is considered guilty of a crime they did not commit. This can happen through various scenarios, including:

• Arrest and Release Without Charge: Authorities may arrest and detain someone but later release them without ever pressing formal charges.

• Charges Dropped Before Trial: An individual may be charged with an offence, but whose conviction has been quashed before the trial commences.

• Conviction Being Overturned on Appeal: A person who has been convicted may have their conviction overturned during the appeals process due to new evidence or procedural errors.

• Pardoned After Conviction: In some cases, individuals are pardoned after their conviction is found to be unjust, often based on new or previously undisclosed facts.

Causes of Wrongful Conviction

Wrongful convictions in Australia can arise from a multitude of individual and systemic factors. Common factors that contribute to wrongful conviction include:

• Police Misconduct: This includes overzealous or unprofessional investigations, corruption, and other forms of misconduct by law enforcement officials.

• Unreliable Evidence: Weak circumstantial evidence, flawed forensic testimony, and the use of discredited expert witnesses can lead to incorrect judgments.

• Eyewitness Identification Errors: Eyewitness misidentification is one of the most frequent contributors to wrongful convictions, often due to flawed procedures or faulty memory.

• False Confessions: Individuals may falsely confess to crimes they did not commit due to coercion, mental health issues, or other pressures.

• Faulty Legal Representation: Inadequate defence counsel can result in insufficient defence strategies, overlooked evidence, or failure to challenge unreliable prosecution evidence.

• Tunnel Vision: When investigators focus solely on a single suspect, disregarding alternative theories or evidence, it increases the risk of convicting the wrong person.

These factors create a confluence that makes wrongful convictions more likely. For instance, an overzealous prosecution combined with faulty forensic evidence can severely undermine the integrity of a trial.

Wrongful Conviction Compensation

Ex Gratia Payments for Wrongful Conviction

Ex gratia payments are monetary compensations made by the government without legal obligation, serving as concessions to erroneously convicted individuals. In Australia, except for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), these payments are discretionary and not guaranteed. 

States and territories may choose to offer ex gratia payments either on their own initiative or upon request by the affected party. Notable cases, such as Kathleen Folbigg seeking compensation for her wrongful imprisonment, highlight the use of ex gratia payments to address miscarriages of justice.

Common Law and Legislative Compensation

Most Australian jurisdictions do not provide a common law or statutory right to compensation for the wrongfully convicted, with the notable exception of the ACT. In jurisdictions outside the ACT, compensation for wrongfully convicted individuals relies solely on the government’s discretion to make ex gratia payments. 

The ACT’s Human Rights Act 2004  (ACT) explicitly grants the right to compensation under specific conditions, distinguishing it from other states and territories where no such legislative framework exists. This lack of formal compensation mechanisms in most jurisdictions means that many erroneously convicted individuals receive no financial restitution for their ordeals.

State and Territory Compensation Schemes

Australian Capital Territory 

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has established a specific legislative framework for compensating individuals erroneously convicted under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). According to Section 23, an individual who has been wrongfully convicted of a criminal offence may seek compensation if their conviction has been reversed or they are pardoned due to a new or newly discovered fact. This conclusively indicates a miscarriage of justice. This right to compensation is independent of ex gratia payments and is considered a statutory right within the ACT.

Compensation under the ACT’s Act is determined “according to law,” though the specific criteria and quantification methods remain unclear. The ACT Supreme Court case of David Eastman exemplifies the application of this legislative approach, where Eastman was awarded over $7 million in compensation for nearly two decades of wrongful imprisonment. This case highlights the ACT’s commitment to providing substantial compensation to erroneously Convicted individuals, reflecting the severity and impact of miscarriages of justice.

Other Australian Jurisdictions

Australian states and territories generally do not offer a statutory or common law right to compensation for wrongful convictions outside the ACT. Instead, compensation is typically provided through discretionary ex gratia payments, which are not guaranteed and are decided on a case-by-case basis. These ex gratia payments are considered “payments of money made or given as a concession” and are not legally compelled.

For instance, in New South Wales, while there is no formal right to compensation, individuals like Kathleen Folbigg have sought substantial ex gratia payments following their wrongful convictions and subsequent pardons. The process involves legal proceedings where the individual must request compensation, which the state may choose to grant based on the circumstances. However, determining compensation amounts under the ex gratia system is often arbitrary and lacks transparency, making it challenging for wrongfully convicted individuals to receive adequate restitution.

While some states and territories can provide compensation through ex gratia payments, the absence of a dedicated legislative framework outside the ACT results in a less consistent and often insufficient approach to addressing wrongful convictions.

Quantum of Compensation

Determining Compensation Amounts

Determining the form of compensation for wrongful convictions in Australia involves several criteria and considerations. Primarily, compensation amounts are influenced by the duration of wrongful imprisonment and the extent of the individual’s suffering during that period. Factors such as the presence of negligence or malice by government officials can also affect both the likelihood and the size of an ex gratia payment. 

Additionally, the lack of specific guidelines makes the process somewhat arbitrary, with compensation levels typically not as generous as those for tortious claims like negligence or false imprisonment. Governments may evaluate the severity of the conviction and the punishment imposed to decide the appropriate compensation. 

For example, longer periods of imprisonment generally result in higher compensation payouts, reflecting the greater loss and suffering endured by the wrongfully convicted individual.

Case Studies of Compensation

Real-world examples illustrate how compensation for wrongful convictions is applied in Australia. Kathleen Folbigg, who was wrongfully convicted of the murder of her four children, is seeking compensation for her 20 years of wrongful imprisonment. 

Her legal team is pursuing what experts suggest could be the largest compensation payout in Australian history. Another notable case is David Eastman from the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), who was awarded over $7 million in compensation after spending nearly two decades in jail for a murder he did not commit. Eastman opted against a $3.8 million “act of grace”  payment, seeking a more substantial compensation figure instead. 

These cases highlight the significant financial restitution that can be awarded to and individuals who has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, underscoring the importance of fair compensation mechanisms within the Australian criminal justice system.

The ACT’s Approach to Compensation

Legal Framework in ACT

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) provides a statutory right to compensation for wrongful convictions under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). Specifically, section 23 outlines the conditions under which an individual can seek compensation, requiring that the sentence be reversed or pardoned due to a new or newly discovered fact that conclusively demonstrates a miscarriage of justice. 

This framework aligns with Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), emphasising the need for specific legal provisions to manage compensation claims effectively. Unlike other Australian jurisdictions, the ACT’s approach offers a clear legislative pathway for wrongfully convicted individuals to obtain financial restitution, reflecting the territory’s commitment to upholding human rights standards.

Notable Cases in ACT

One of the most prominent cases illustrating the ACT’s compensation framework is that of David Eastman. Wrongfully convicted of a murder he did not commit, Eastman spent nearly two decades in prison before being awarded over $7 million in compensation by the ACT Supreme Court. 

This landmark decision highlights the ACT’s robust legal mechanisms for addressing miscarriages of justice and providing substantial financial restitution to wrongfully convicted individuals. Eastman’s case underscores the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) in enabling individuals wrongfully convicted and imprisoned to receive fair compensation, setting a precedent for future cases within the territory.

Conclusion

Wrongful convictions in Australia represent a significant miscarriage of justice, profoundly impacting the lives of innocent individuals and their families. Compensation mechanisms, primarily through ex gratia payments, are available in most jurisdictions but often lack transparency and consistency, as evidenced by high-profile cases like Kathleen Folbigg and David Eastman. 

The Australian Capital Territory stands out by offering a statutory right to compensation under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), providing a clearer and more structured pathway for restitution. However, the absence of similar legislative frameworks in other states and territories highlights the need for comprehensive legal reforms to ensure fair and consistent compensation for all wrongfully convicted individuals.

To address these challenges, it is imperative to introduce dedicated legislation or specific guidelines across all Australian jurisdictions, aligning with international human rights best practices. Enhancing transparency and establishing uniform criteria for compensation will help provide just restitution to those affected by wrongful convictions. If you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted, contact our experienced legal team today to explore your options for seeking the compensation you deserve.

Frequently Asked Questions