Barry George Loses Payout Bid Over Jill Dando Conviction 'For Not Being Innocent Enough'

Barry George 'Not Innocent Enough' To Win Payout

Barry George, who spent eight years behind bars after being wrongly convicted of the murder of Jill Dando, has lost his High Court bid for compensation on the grounds he was "not innocent enough."

Two judges rejected Barry George's claim that he was victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin ruled on Friday that the Secretary of State was entirely justified in his ruling that George was "not innocent enough to be compensated".

Mr George's solicitor, Nick Baird, said: "We are very disappointed with the judgment and we shall be applying for permission to leapfrog the Court of Appeal to have the matter heard before the Supreme Court."

Jill Dando was shot dead in Fulham in 1999

Mr George, 52, came to court to seek a reconsideration of his case which could have opened the way for him to claim an award of up to £500,000 for lost earnings and wrongful imprisonment.

But the judges ruled that he had "failed the legal test" to receive an award.

Miss Dando was shot dead outside her home in Fulham in April 1999.

After his conviction in July 2001, Mr George, of Fulham, west London, was acquitted of killing the 37-year-old BBC presenter at a retrial in August 2008.

Today's high-profile compensation action was one of five test cases assembled to decide who is now entitled to payments in "miscarriage of justice" cases following a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in May 2011.

Decisions in all five cases to refuse payouts were defended by current Justice Secretary Chris Grayling in a three-day hearing last October.

Ian Lawless, who spent eight years behind bars for murder before being freed by the Court of Appeal in 2009, won a similar legal challenge.

Mr Lawless was jailed for life in 2002 after confessing to the murder of retired sea captain Alf Wilkins on the Yarborough estate in Grimsby, Lincolnshire.

His conviction was later ruled unsafe after fresh medical evidence revealed he had a "pathological need for attention".

The judges ruled that in his case the decision to refuse compensation was legally flawed and must be reconsidered in the light of their judgment.


What's Hot