At present, the home office's position is that compensation is only paid "Where it is clear that the victim is innocent" (!!!)
Yet the law says clearly that a defendent is innocent until proved guilty. If they are subsequently not proved to be guilty, it follows that they must be innocent!
Refusing to pay compensation is not only unjust; the financial loss of earnings and almost certain loss of posessions during the victim's time in jail is then compunded by the apparent slur that they are still guilty – it's just that the state hasn't yet managed to prove it!
This ridiculous contradiction in the application of the law must be addressed: it is the ultimate civil liberty issue.