A man whose innocence is beyond dispute, but whose compensation remains beyond reach
In Fishguard, Wales, a man exonerated after five years of wrongful imprisonment finds that the law, having acknowledged his innocence, still refuses to compensate him for it. Brian Buckle's case illuminates a quiet but consequential shift made in 2014, when the threshold for miscarriage of justice compensation was raised so high that even a unanimous not guilty verdict at retrial is not enough to meet it. His story joins a growing chorus of voices asking whether a justice system that cannot make its victims whole has truly delivered justice at all.
- A man spent five years in prison for crimes he did not commit, and his family spent £500,000 proving it — yet the state has twice refused to compensate him.
- A 2014 legal change quietly redefined the rules, demanding near-impossible proof of innocence rather than the reasonable doubt standard his retrial already satisfied.
- Political pressure mounted — a Westminster debate, a former Justice Minister's intervention, a formal review — and still the Ministry of Justice rejected his second appeal in April.
- His barrister argues the 2014 law was designed to fail claimants, and high-profile cases like Andrew Malkinson's and the Post Office scandal have made the system's failures impossible to ignore.
- The Law Commission is expected to publish proposals at the end of 2026 that would reverse the 2014 change, and Buckle's only remaining hope is that any reform will reach back to include him.
Brian Buckle lives as a free man in Fishguard, Pembrokeshire, but freedom has cost him nearly everything. Convicted in 2017 of historical child sex abuse and sentenced to fifteen years, he spent more than five years in prison while his family never stopped fighting for him. The Court of Appeal eventually found his conviction unsafe, and a 2023 retrial at Swansea Crown Court ended swiftly — new forensic evidence and fresh witnesses produced a unanimous not guilty verdict.
The vindication was real, but its price was staggering. His family spent £500,000 on legal costs, and Buckle himself emerged with severe PTSD, daily medication, and a permanent sense of unease. When he applied for compensation through the government's miscarriage of justice scheme, he was rejected. His MP, Ben Lake, raised the case in Westminster, and a former Justice Minister expressed her wish to restore Buckle's faith in the system. The Ministry of Justice agreed to review his application. In April, they rejected it again — acknowledging his conviction had been quashed and his innocence not in doubt, yet ruling he did not meet the statutory criteria.
The obstacle is a 2014 legal change that shifted the burden from proving no reasonable jury could convict, to proving the claimant definitively did not commit the crime — a standard almost impossible to meet without DNA or CCTV evidence. His barrister Stephen Vullo KC was direct: the legislation appears designed to ensure nearly everyone is turned down. The human cost of this threshold has become hard to ignore — Andrew Malkinson spent over seventeen years wrongfully imprisoned and was left destitute even after exoneration, while the Post Office Horizon scandal required four separate compensation schemes because the existing rules were so inadequate.
The Law Commission, asked by the government in 2024 to review the system, published provisional proposals in early 2025 that would lower the standard to a balance of probabilities. A final report is expected by the end of 2026. Buckle hopes any reform will apply retrospectively. His MP has promised to keep pressing ministers until the right thing is done. For now, Buckle waits — his innocence undisputed, his compensation still out of reach.
Brian Buckle sits in his home in Fishguard, Pembrokeshire, a free man whose freedom cost him everything. In 2017, he was convicted of historical child sex abuse and sentenced to 15 years in prison. His wife Elaine and the rest of his family never wavered in their belief that he was innocent. They were right. After five years behind bars and a grueling legal battle that stretched across five years, the Court of Appeal found his conviction unsafe and released him. A retrial at Swansea Crown Court in 2023 brought the vindication he needed: his barrister, Stephen Vullo KC, presented new forensic evidence and witnesses that led to a swift, unanimous not guilty verdict.
But clearing his name came at a price that the law now refuses to acknowledge. Buckle and his family spent £500,000 on legal costs to prove what the courts ultimately confirmed—that he had done nothing wrong. The psychological toll has been severe. He lives with PTSD, takes medication daily, and describes himself as perpetually on edge. "As a family it's been really hard," he said. "It's the most horrendous thing I've ever had to go through."
When Buckle applied for compensation through the government's miscarriages of justice scheme, he was rejected. His MP, Ben Lake, who represents Fishguard, was so troubled by the decision that he hosted a debate in Westminster to raise the issue. The case drew attention in the House of Commons itself. Former Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones intervened, expressing her desire to restore Buckle's faith in the criminal justice system. When the Ministry of Justice agreed to review his application, there was cautious hope that the political pressure might yield results.
It did not. In April, the MoJ rejected Buckle's second appeal. The letter was almost cruel in its precision: it acknowledged that his conviction had been quashed and that the not guilty verdict cast no doubt on his innocence, yet compensation could not be awarded because his claim did not meet the statutory criteria. Buckle said he felt "sick" upon learning the news.
The reason for the rejection lies in a subtle but consequential change to the law made in 2014. Before that year, compensation was paid to those who could establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that no reasonable jury could convict on the evidence presented. Buckle's retrial satisfied that standard—a jury heard new witnesses and forensic evidence and found him not guilty. But the 2014 change shifted the burden entirely. Now, compensation is only paid to those who can prove they did not commit the crime. This is nearly impossible without DNA or CCTV evidence that conclusively exonerates them. Vullo, Buckle's barrister, was blunt about the design: "If you were to ask me to draft a piece of legislation that would ensure that almost everybody was turned down for compensation, I'd draft something similar to this. It's not by mistake, it's intentional."
The 2014 change was made to reduce the burden on taxpayers, according to an MoJ assessment at the time. But the consequences have become impossible to ignore. Andrew Malkinson, who spent more than 17 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of rape, had his conviction overturned by DNA evidence that proved his innocence—yet he was left destitute while waiting for compensation. Only widespread media attention secured him an interim payment in February 2025. He called the system "not fit for purpose."
The Post Office Horizon scandal, one of the UK's most widespread miscarriages of justice, exposed the problem so starkly that four separate compensation schemes had to be established for its victims—schemes that would not have helped Buckle under the current rules. In response, the Law Commission was asked by the government in 2024 to examine compensation and support for the wrongly convicted as part of its broader review of criminal appeals in England and Wales. In February 2025, the Commission published provisional proposals that would reverse the 2014 change, requiring only that the wrongly convicted prove their innocence on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. That report on compensation is now scheduled for publication at the end of 2026.
Buckle holds onto the hope that any change will be applied retrospectively, that he and others like him will finally receive what the state owes them. Ben Lake, his MP, has vowed not to let the matter rest. "If that means I'm to drag ministers to the House of Commons or Westminster Hall, and table questions until they finally do the right thing, then so be it," he said. For now, Buckle waits—a man whose innocence is beyond dispute, but whose compensation remains beyond reach.
Citas Notables
I suffer with PTSD, I'm on medication, I'm just always on edge. As a family it's been really hard, it's the most horrendous thing I've ever had to go through.— Brian Buckle
If you were to ask me to draft a piece of legislation that would ensure that almost everybody was turned down for compensation, I'd draft something similar to this. It's not by mistake, it's intentional.— Stephen Vullo KC, Buckle's barrister
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the 2014 law change make compensation so much harder to get?
Before 2014, you had to show that no reasonable jury could convict you on the evidence. Buckle's retrial proved that—a jury heard new evidence and found him not guilty. But the new law says you have to prove you didn't do it, period. Without DNA or video, that's almost impossible.
So the government made it harder on purpose?
The MoJ said it was to reduce the burden on taxpayers. But yes, the effect was intentional. Vullo, Buckle's barrister, said if you wanted to design a law that would reject almost everyone, you'd write something like this.
How many people has this affected?
We don't have exact numbers, but it's clearly a pattern. Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for rape he didn't commit—DNA proved it—and still couldn't get compensation. The Post Office scandal was so bad they had to create four separate schemes just to get around this law.
What does Buckle want now?
He wants the law changed retroactively so he and others like him can finally get compensation. The Law Commission is supposed to publish new proposals at the end of 2026. If they reverse the 2014 change, Buckle might finally get what he's owed.
How much did it cost him to prove his innocence?
Half a million pounds. His family spent that much on legal costs. He's on medication for PTSD now, always on edge. The irony is brutal—he had to bankrupt himself to prove the courts were wrong about him.
And the government still won't compensate him?
Not under the current rules. Even though his conviction was quashed and he was found not guilty, the law says that doesn't count as proof of innocence. It's a catch-22 that's infuriating everyone from his MP to the former Justice Minister.