Wrongful conviction compensation: how countries decide payouts

When a court overturns a conviction, the person freed has often lost years of liberty, income and reputation. Whether the state pays anything depends on the country, and sometimes on the region. Some places pay a fixed sum for each day or year served. Others ask claimants to prove their innocence all over again. This article explains the main approaches and the arguments around them.

Why compensation is not automatic

A quashed conviction and an exoneration are not the same thing. A conviction can be quashed because of a procedural error, unsafe evidence or non-disclosure by the prosecution, without any finding that the person did not commit the offence. Many compensation schemes draw a line between the two, and that line explains most of the differences between countries.

An international benchmark exists. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a United Nations treaty, says that people punished under a conviction later reversed because of a new or newly discovered fact should be compensated according to law. The treaty leaves each state to decide the detail, so the rules vary widely across legal systems.

England and Wales

Compensation for a miscarriage of justice is governed by section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. An applicant must show that the conviction was reversed, or a pardon granted, because of a new or newly discovered fact. Since the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, the fact must show beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence. Claimants must also not be responsible for the fact having stayed hidden.

Once an application is accepted, an independent assessor decides the amount, not the Secretary of State. Statutory caps apply. They have been £500,000 where the person served less than 10 years and £1 million for 10 years or more. The government announced in 2025 that these would rise by 30%, to £650,000 and £1.3 million.

The scheme is narrow in practice. Official figures at the time of the 2014 changes put applications at 40 to 50 a year, with only two or three found eligible. Campaigners argue that requiring proof of innocence is unfair, because most criminal trials ask the prosecution to prove guilt rather than the defendant to prove innocence.

The United States

Federal and state schemes

There is no single national system. Federal law provides up to $50,000 for each year of wrongful imprisonment, and up to $100,000 for each year spent on death row. Claimants need a court finding that they are innocent. Many states have their own statutes, but not all do. Rates differ sharply: Texas pays $80,000 a year, while Wisconsin pays far less and caps the total.

Some states pay no-fault compensation, so claimants need only show innocence and do not have to prove misconduct. Other states bar people who contributed to their own conviction, for example by pleading guilty.

Civil lawsuits

Exonerees can also sue under federal civil rights law if they can show that officials violated their constitutional rights. Damages are not fixed in advance and can exceed statutory payments by a wide margin. These cases are slow and uncertain, and a few states reduce statutory awards if the person later wins a civil settlement.

Germany and France

Germany relies on a statute that applies when a conviction is overturned, or when pre-trial detention ends in acquittal or a dropped case. It pays a flat sum for each day in custody, currently €75, for non-material harm. Financial losses, such as lost earnings, must be shown and proved separately. Claimants do not need to show official fault.

In July 2026 the Federal Ministry of Justice published a draft law to raise the daily sum to €100, and to €150 after six months. It would also stop prisons deducting the cost of food and lodging, and give claimants more time to apply. Because the German states pay the compensation, the reform needs their approval and has not yet become law.

France takes a different route for detention that proves unjustified. A person who is released without charge, or is cleared of the offence, can claim full compensation for moral and material harm. The claim goes first to the senior judge of the court of appeal. A national commission attached to the Court of Cassation then hears any appeal, and its decisions are final.

Canada

Canada has no general statutory right. Federal and provincial governments decide case by case, often under guidelines that require a pardon or an acquittal. Some provinces look for proof of factual innocence. People whose cases end because the Crown decides not to seek a retrial may therefore receive nothing. A commission report in 2021 recommended a no-fault compensation scheme to meet Canada's treaty obligations.

How the main approaches compare

What the differences mean

Wrongful conviction compensation shows how states balance fairness to the individual against concern for public money and a wish to avoid paying people who may in fact be guilty. Fixed rates give certainty but can undervalue lost years. Discretionary schemes can adapt to the facts but leave outcomes unpredictable. Reforms now under discussion in several countries centre on the same questions: who must prove what, how much is enough, and how quickly payment should follow a ruling that a person should never have been convicted.