Set-back for Greenham protesters
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.(First Edition)
HUNDREDS of women anti-nuclear protesters wrongly imprisoned for trespass at RAF Greenham Common under invalid by-laws had their hopes of winning compensation dashed in the High Court yesterday.
In a test case, two judges ruled that the Home Secretary did not act unlawfully when he refused in October 1991 to make a payment to a Greenham peace camp regular.
Katrina Howse claimed she was entitled to an award for 14 days she spent in jail between May 1985 and January 1987, convicted under Ministry of Defence by-laws ruled invalid by the Law Lords in July 1990.
Her convictions were quashed in June 1991. But the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, refused compensation on the grounds that the quashing was not the result of a 'new or newly discovered fact' which showed beyond reasonable doubt there had been a miscarriage of justice.
Matthias Kelly, for Ms Howse, argued yesterday that the Home Secretary had misdirected himself in law and that compensation was still payable where a conviction was reversed for reasons other than a 'new fact' coming to light. Alternatively, he said, the Law Lords' ruling was precisely such a fact and under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act compensation should be paid.
Lord Justice Leggatt and Mr Justice McCullough said the case was 'unarguable'.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments