On Monday 9 February 2026, Peter Sullivan and Sarah Myatt attended the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Miscarriages of Justice meeting in Westminster alongside colleagues, campaigners and parliamentarians. It was an event marked by dignity, courage and deep frustration, as three men who between them lost 77 years of their lives to wrongful convictions spoke publicly about the reality of life after prison.

Peter Sullivan, Justin Plummer and Oliver Campbell all had their convictions overturned within the past two years. Yet not one of them has received a penny in compensation and for Justin and Oliver, it may never happen at all. All three men have been released from prison without financial aid, a chance at employment or support to rehabilitate to life in the community.

This is not because their innocence is in doubt. It is because the law in England and Wales requires victims of miscarriages of justice to prove their innocence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ if they want to qualify for compensation. This is a threshold that is almost impossible to meet, even after the Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction.

Fighting to be heard

The first hurdle that these men faced was proving their innocence. To be able to apply for an appeal a prisoner must have new evidence that has come to light since their original trial. This means that any prisoner like Peter, Justin and Oliver whose sentences came about due to out dated evidence methodologies can’t appeal based on the discreditation of the original evidence.

Anyone who wishes to appeal a conviction is then left scrabbling around for anything that they can use as evidence. In the case of Peter, we saw his original appeal in 2021 rejected as the discreditation of bite mark evidence and coerced confession wasn’t considered enough to overturn his confession.

Once they eventually do fight their way out of the prison system there are further hurdles to overcome.

A system that compounds injustice

Peter Sullivan spent 38 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. His conviction was overturned last year after new DNA evidence proved another unknown person was responsible. Despite this, Peter remains without compensation and is currently trying to survive on benefits while attempting to rebuild his life after nearly four decades behind bars. Due to the DNA evidence that secured his release, Peter does meet the threshold for compensation. Eventually Peter should be given some compensation but, in many cases, this has taken years, so his struggles are unlikely to end soon.

The barriers he faces are deeply troubling. Leaving prison after so long, he had no bank account, no identification, and no practical support. In order to open a bank account professionals had to verify a photo of him and share it with banks as he had no other way to prove who he was, an unnecessarily drawn-out process. These are basic necessities most of us take for granted, yet without them, it is impossible to access benefits, housing or healthcare. No one who has suffered such profound injustice should be left in this position.

Justin Plummer is another failure of the system. Justin spent 28 years in prison following two wrongful convictions for the same murder. Both were overturned, the first due to discredited forensic evidence where a trainer print is the evidence used against him. This was overturned based on a new trial taking place where he was reconvicted, this time based on ‘cell-mate confession’ evidence, an evidence type that has long been disregarded as highly questionable evidence. At his second overturning the Court of Appeal accepted that the case against him simply could not stand, neither a trainer mark nor the testimony of a psychotic ex-cell mate was evidence of murder.

Justin spoke movingly about the devastating mental health impact of his imprisonment. He also shared how disappointed he was to find out that he wasn’t entitled to any compensation, yet his mental health after all this time wasn’t good enough for him to rehabilitate and work.

Oliver Campbell spent 11 years in prison after being coerced into a false confession. He has learning disabilities and suffered brain damage as a baby, making him particularly vulnerable during police interviews. Oliver sadly faces the same issue as Justin and that there has been no evidence come to light that puts his conviction beyond reasonable doubt. This is because there was no evidence against him in the first instance except his forced confession.

The impact of the 2014 law change

The current compensation scheme was introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It significantly narrowed eligibility, limiting payments to those who can prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt. In practice, this means that unless there is clear DNA evidence or similar proof identifying another perpetrator, most claims fail.

Between 2020 and 2023, less than £1.3 million was paid in compensation. In the three years prior to 2010, the figure exceeded £20 million. The difference is stark, and it reflects not fewer miscarriages of justice, but far more restrictive rules.

The effect is cruel. Survivors of wrongful convictions are being forced into poverty, ill health and social isolation, precisely at the moment when they most need stability and support.

Why reform matters

Wrongful convictions do not just take away years of freedom. They strip people of family life, education, employment, housing, health and dignity. Release from prison does not mark the end of that harm. For many, it is the beginning of a new struggle.

At the APPG meeting, MPs and peers heard powerful calls for urgent reform of the compensation scheme and better practical support for those leaving prison after miscarriages of justice. These are changes that are long overdue.

Justice must mean more than simply quashing a conviction. It must include proper recognition of the harm caused and meaningful support to help people rebuild their lives.

A personal reflection

Representing Peter Sullivan has been both an honour and a profound responsibility. His resilience, humility and kindness, after everything he has endured, are extraordinary. No system that treats people like Peter in this way can claim to be truly just.

The law must change. We owe it to those who have lost so much through no fault of their own.