Wrongly jailed man plans legal action for prison stay refund

Michael O'Brien has continued to campaign over the miscarriage of justice

A wrongly jailed man who had £37,500 cut from his compensation to pay for lodgings is planning legal action to get his money back.

Michael O'Brien was one of three men wrongly convicted for the 1987 killing of Cardiff newsagent Phillip Saunders.

The UK government has removed a rule that meant the wrongly imprisoned could be made to pay for their living costs.

That follows Andrew Malkinson's release after serving 17 years for a rape he did not commit.

Mr O'Brien, who spent 11 years in prison for murder, said a solicitor had agreed to to try and recover the money.

He said "We're going to write to the Ministry of Justice to ask if it's retrospective, and if not why not?"

Mr O'Brien believed, if necessary, he had grounds for a judicial review.

• Lynette White: Miscarriage of justice victim Tony Paris dies

• South Wales Police apology 70 years after hanging injustice

• Anglesey honours wrongly jailed sub-postmaster

The UK government said the change would apply to "all future payments made under the miscarriage of justice compensation scheme".

Mr O'Brien said: "It's wrong in principle. Guilty people don't get charged. It's degrading, it feels like the final insult."

He said he intended to approach others wrongly imprisoned to join the case if they were charged for their living costs.

The killers of Cardiff newsagent Phillip Saunders have never been caught

People wrongly jailed for more than 10 years can be paid up to £1m under a government compensation scheme.

But since a House of Lords ruling involving the case of Mr O'Brien and others in 2007, that total figure could be reduced to take into account "savings" individuals made on things like housing and food while imprisoned.

The Ministry of Justice said its independent assessors who make the deductions have not done this in the past 10 years.

It was initially ruled in 2003 that Mr O'Brien would have the £37,000 taken from his compensation refunded to him.

But that decision was reversed the following year when judges upheld a Home Office claim for his "saved living expenses".