Conviction Quashed - Compensation Issues.

[barry1010]

I have been thinking about Peter Sullivan, the man who had his conviction overturned after spending 38 years in prison and pondering why some people in his situation get compensation and others don't.  Should they all get compensation?

Not related to that case, but if a person was fairly and correctly found guilty on the evidence available at that time(no jiggery pokery by police, no false confession, no false witnesses, no  jury tampering etc) should he later be entitled to compensation if his conviction is quashed because new technology has cast doubt on the conviction?

Example:  man found guilty of rape. He fit the description, he didn't have an alibi.  He had a previous conviction for indecent exposure. A witness picked him out in an identity parade.

Years later new technology proves that semen found on the victim's clothing was not his.

In other areas a person is only entitled to compensation if there is evidence of wrong doing, either deliberately or negligently.  In my hypothetical scenario there has been neither.  

My questions are, has everyone who has had their conviction quashed been wrongly convicted and should compensation be automatic?

[THECORBYLOON]

That was about the deduction.