CRIMINALS should no longer be able to have their convictions quashed because of technical errors committed during trials, Charles Clarke said yesterday.

The Home Secretary said that he wanted the Court of Appeal to make fewer decisions on “technicalities” and more on the facts about whether the offender had carried out the crime or not.

Mr Clarke suggested that the Scottish verdict of “not proven” could be introduced in the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, to give the courts greater flexibility when deciding appeals. He announced a ministerial review of whether the legal test for quashing convictions was too low, as part of measures to cut compensation payments to people who had been wrongly convicted.

Mr Clarke described miscarriage of justice cases as a massive industry for the legal profession that had little to do with justice. He announced plans for a cap of £500,000 on compensation for wrongful conviction, and new conditions will be placed on claimants.

Compensation for some claimants could be reduced to zero because of previous convictions or other conduct.

A discretionary compensation scheme that was set up in 1985 and pays out £2 million a year was abolished yesterday, but a separate statutory compensation scheme that pays out £6 million a year will continue.

The end of the discretionary scheme means that people who have been wrongly convicted will not be able to apply for financial redress if their cases were quashed as they went through the normal appeal process. Mr Clarke’s announcement of a review of the test used by the Court of Appeal to quash criminal convictions reflects his disquiet at the way the legal system operates. “I propose to examine whether, and if so to what extent, an error in the trial process necessarily means a miscarriage of justice,” Mr Clarke said.

“I think the more the legal system clearly relates to the conduct of individuals who have done things or have not done things, and the less it relates to the technicalities of the legal process, the better it is for the transparency of the legal system as a whole. What individuals want to see is a legal system that correctly finds guilty those who are guilty of an offence and acquits those who are innocent, with respect to what they did or didn’t do rather than with respect to whether the legal process was or was not correctly followed.”

The review team, with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, and the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, will look at giving the Court of Appeal the option of a “not proven” verdict, which effectively leaves a stain on someone’s reputation. The review comes after a report by Lord Justice Auld, which in 2001 suggested looking again at the test used by the Court of Appeal to quash a conviction on the ground of “unsafety”.

The proposals to overhaul compensation payments are intended to save the Home Office £5 million. Mr Clarke said that he wanted a fairer system. “We are paying too much, the costs are rising and there is no limit to the amount being paid out,” he said.

He said that dealing with miscarriages of justice was “a massive industry for the legal profession, which is not really about justice and righting wrongs in a fair way”. He said that his changes would mean the end of a small industry that had been getting large amounts of money for individuals who did not deserve it.

The Home Office said that average award for wrongful conviction was more than £250,000 in 2005-06. In comparison, the average award for a victim of crime is £5,000.

The changes were criticised by campaigners and victims of miscarriages of justice. Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford Four who were wrongly imprisoned for an IRA bombing in 1974, said that he was “absolutely horrified”. “If Charles Clarke wants to make cuts, let him cut the pensions of the forensic scientists, the police officers, who have lied or contaminated or fabricated evidence that sent these innocent people to prison,” he told BBC News 24.

COMPENSATION PAYMENTS THAT REACHED £500,000

Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford Four, spent 15 years in jail after being convicted of the IRA bombing of a pub in 1974. His conviction was quashed in 1989 and he received £500,000 compensation

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones