Miscarriage of justice ruling due

 10 May 2011 Last updated at 20:15 ET  Barry George was cleared of killing Jill Dando after a retrial in 2008 The UK Supreme Court is due to rule on whether compensation should be more widely available for people who have been wrongfully convicted.

The case could have implications for dozens of former prisoners in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Judges will clarify the position for three men refused compensation after their murder convictions were quashed.

Lawyers for Barry George - cleared at a retrial of killing BBC presenter Jill Dando - also took part in the hearing.

Mr George spent eight years in jail before being acquitted in August 2008 of Ms Dando's murder.

The High Court later ruled he was entitled to a judicial review hearing over the government decision to refuse him compensation of up to ￡500,000.

Beyond reasonable doubt

People who have been wrongfully convicted are entitled to compensation only if they can show there's been a "miscarriage of justice".

But the meaning of the phrase has been unclear since a Law Lords ruling in 2004 which came up with different definitions.

The version adopted by the government has resulted in compensation being denied to people because they could not prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

The men involved in the Supreme Court case have seen their claims for compensation rejected despite them being cleared by the Court of Appeal.

The main case in the proceedings involves Andrew Adams, who spent 14 years in jail after being wrongly convicted of murder.

Mr Adams, from Newcastle, was found guilty in 1993 of shooting retired science teacher Jack Royal, but released in 2007 by the Court of Appeal.

The High Court later rejected his compensation bid, and Mr Adams took his case to the Court of Appeal.

The two other cases are from Northern Ireland.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw says if the court widens the meaning of "miscarriage of justice" the government will have to reconsider Mr George's claim - along with many others that have been turned down.

However, the judgement is unlikely to affect Scotland where there are fewer restrictions on eligibility for compensation.

Justice Dept. to Continue Policy Against Same-Sex Marriage

After two instances in which deportations were suspended in immigration cases involving same-sex couples, the Justice Department has cautioned that it will continue to enforce a law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

A Justice Department official said Saturday that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had made no change in the administration’s approach to the law, the Defense of Marriage Act, suggesting that deportations could continue in other immigration cases involving married gay couples.

On Friday, an immigration judge in Newark suspended the deportation of Henry Velandia, a Venezuelan man who was legally married last year in Connecticut to an American citizen, Josh Vandiver. The judge cited an unusual action by Mr. Holder in a different case.

On Thursday, Mr. Holder postponed the deportation of an Irish immigrant involved in a same-sex union, sending the case back to the immigration appeals court. The Irish man, Paul Wilson Dorman, was joined in a civil union in 2009 with an American citizen in New Jersey.

The Board of Immigration Appeals had denied Mr. Dorman residency, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. Among other issues, Mr. Holder asked the appeals court to consider whether the civil union might qualify Mr. Dorman as a spouse eligible for residency.

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Mr. Holder, said he had interceded in Mr. Dorman’s case only because he wanted the immigration appeals court to decide issues he felt had been overlooked. “As we have made clear, we will continue to enforce DOMA,” Ms. Schmaler said.

In February, Mr. Holder announced that the administration viewed the marriage act as unconstitutional and would not defend it in the courts, although the administration would continue to enforce the law.

Gay rights advocates have asked the administration to postpone all deportations for same-sex married couples until the courts decide whether the marriage act is constitutional. Under immigration law, an American citizen can petition for legal residency for a spouse, if the spouse is not the same sex.