COMPENSATIONConviction quashed because of an unfair trial - judge's attack on unrepresented defendant's integrity in front of jury constituting judicial error or misconduct amounting to exceptional circumstances - compensation payableR v Secretary of State of the Home Department, Ex parte Tawfick: DC (Rose LJ and Moses J): 16 November 2000 The applicant's conviction of conspiracy to steal was quashed by the Court of Appeal on the basis that he had suffered an unfair trial.

The applicant's claim for compensation under the non-statutory compensation scheme was refused by the secretary of state.

The Divisional Court quashed that decision and directed that he consider whether there had been judicial error or misconduct which amounted to exceptional circumstances.

The secretary of state refused the renewed application for compensation.

The applicant sought judicial review of that decision.

Peter Irvin (instructed by Abboushi Associates), for the applicant.

Hugo Keith (instructed by the treasury solicitor) for the secretary of state.Held, granting the application, that when making a decision as to whether a judge's conduct amounted to exceptional circumstances it was necessary to concentrate upon the actions of the judge; that the judge's attack on the integrity of the defendant, who had been acting in person without any protection, in open court in front of the jury was completely exceptional; that the secretary of state's view that the conduct of the judge did not amount to exceptional circumstances was irrational; that the secretary of state had erred in regarding the decision in R v Bentley [1990] Crim LR 330 as a bench mark against which to test all other cases where claims based on actions of a judge were advanced; and that, in accordance with this, the secretary of state's decision was outside the range of reasonable responses.