Successful rape appellant to have compensation claim reconsidered

A man whose conviction for rape was quashed after seven years should have his failed claim for compensation reconsidered by the Scottish Government, the appeal court in Edinburgh ruled yesterday.

Three judges in the Court of Session agreed with the Lord Ordinary, Lord Burns, who quashed two decision letters refusing the claim for ex gratia compensation by Desmond Dinnell.

Mr Dinnell was convicted in October 2002 of the rape of a 15-year-old girl, but cleared on appeal in December 2009 on the basis of new DNA evidence. He had served nearly 30 months of a six year sentence before being granted interim liberation in December 2004, and remained subject to restrictions as a registered sex offender until his appeal succeeded.

He applied for compensation under the ministerial policy which allows payments on a discretionary basis to people who have spent time in custody due to serious default on the part of the police or other pubic authority, or where there are "exceptional circumstances that justify compensation in cases outside these categories". He founded on the length of time for which he was publicly regarded as a sex offender.

In the letters challenged, the ministers stated that while there appeared to be an exceptional length of time until the appeal, the time Mr Dinnell had spent in custody was not exceptional; he was "not completely exonerated" by the appeal court decision; and there were "no factors of an exceptional nature that would merit compensation being paid in this case".

Lord Burns at first instance held that the statements in the letters were inconsistent and it had not been explained why there were no exceptional circumstances justifying compensation, given the length of time until the appeal. The ministers argued on appeal that they had a wide discretion as to what constituted exceptional circumstances and whether these justified an award of compensation, and there was no basis for interfering with their decision.

Lady Clark of Calton, who delivered the leading judgment on appeal, said she accepted that there was a wide discretion, but the court was entitled to examine the rationality of the reasons given. If there was an exceptional length of time until the appeal, the length of imprisonment served could not logically detract from that. Further, the comment about exoneration "demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the role of the appeal court"; and a comment that other issues were not established by the court indicated a "hopeless confusion which it is impossible to unravel in this part of the letter". Exoneration was in any event not specified in the scheme as a criterion that had to be met.

"Despite the valiant efforts of counsel for the reclaimers, I consider that the reasons given in the decision letters do not bear scrutiny and are irrational", she concluded.

Lord Eassie and Lord Brodie delivered concurring judgments, and the court ordered that Mr Dinnell's application be reconsidered.

Click here to view the opinions.