http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4687542.stm

In this case is it fair the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice should be denied the right to sue for compensation ?

The suspicion that it's just a matter of the legal profession closing ranks to conceal incompetence is the thought that first springs to mind, but it could be worse than that.

The end result though is that the public lose trust in the judicial system :(

Hmm, doesn't make much sense to me. What could it possibly mean other than they messed up and don't want the public to lose trust in their system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest

Or maybe it could be that there is a serious gray area in the case and could lead to overturning of other convictions from time gone by, thus compensation payments which they want to avoid until the law is rectified.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4687542.stm

In this case is it fair the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice should be denied the right to sue for compensation ?

The suspicion that it's just a matter of the legal profession closing ranks to conceal incompetence is the thought that first springs to mind, but it could be worse than that.

The end result though is that the public lose trust in the judicial system :(

Some suggested grammatical changes "the suspicion that it's just a matter of the legal profession closing ranks to conceal incompetence is the ONLY thought that IMMEDIATELY springs to mind, AND could be FAR worse.

If it's "in the public interest" it means it won't upset the PC brigade :loopy: :rant:

I'm guessing that someone came forward and gave evidence against a third party and, in order that a future trial would not be jeopardised, the CPS are reluctant to reveal his/her identity to anyone involved in the case.

I, unlike others, still have a vestige of faith in our legal system.

If it's "in the public interest" it means it won't upset the PC brigade :loopy: :rant:

Sure..... :rolleyes:

I agree with Max - there must be something to do with an ongoing enquiry or a further prosecution.

I agree with Max - there must be something to do with an ongoing enquiry or a further prosecution.

That is certainly a possibility, but continuing or further enquiries are usually acknowledged by the police or the CPS. In any case as the conviction of Shaun Booker has been overturned you would expect the police to reopen the case and there is no intimation from the judges that the secrecy about the new evidence is a temporary matter.

Where does the verdict leave the family of the dead man Michael Marple ? I imagine they will be wondering what is going on.

I, unlike others, still have a vestige of faith in our legal system.

Well I suppose a 'vestige' is marginally better than none at all.