Brian Buckle - who spent five years in jail for wrongful child abuse conviction - in call for new law so 'juries can deem people innocent' after retrial

A MAN who spent five years behind bars after being wrongly convicted of child sex abuse offences is calling for a new law whereby jurors can proclaim if they believe those who win criminal appeals are actually innocent.

Brian Buckle, 54, (above) is making the call after the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) again refused to pay him any compensation for his time spent in bars, saying he has still yet to sufficiently prove his innocence, despite the acquittal.

His family spent around £500,000 on legal fees battling to get him out before his release in 2023.

He had been found guilty of sexually assaulting a child, charges which he had denied.

He faced 12 charges of indecent assault, three of indecency with a child, and one of attempted rape – all dated between March 31, 1993 and April 1, 1996.

Each of the allegations involved the same complainant.

Mr Buckle, from Fishguard, was sentenced to a combined 33 years in prison, to be served over a 15 year period.

After a lengthy legal battle, his conviction was found unsafe by the Court of Appeal in 2022 after a retrial, which had fresh forensic evidence and witnesses, the jury cleared him of all counts within four hours of deliberation in May 2023.

Despite this, he has now been refused compensation by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for a second time.

The MoJ wrote a letter to Mr Buckle maintaining he has been unable to “prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt” and rejecting his compensation claim last month.

It follows a significant law change in 2014 that means if a victim of a miscarriage of justice in England and Wales wants to receive compensation, they must not only be cleared, but also demonstrate they are innocent.

Mr Buckle told the Facing Allegations in Contexts of Trust (FACT) Spring Conference  today, Saturday May 9 2026, in Birmingham: "What more do I have to do to prove my innocence?

"That is how bad this justice system is but the fight goes on and we are going back to Westminster and writing to the Prime Minister."

His barrister Stephen Vullo KC told the conference that Mr Buckle's fight now includes calls for new legislation called Buckles Law.

Being found not guilty, even after a retrial, does not mean you have been proved to be innocent.

It could just mean the jury had some doubts with the prosecution evidence - hence the criminal burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt."

Mr Vullo explained that under the proposed Buckles Law, in cases where a person was acquitted after a retrial, jurors would be asked to retire again to consider and reach a verdict on whether they thought the acquitted person was innocent.

If a jury found they were innocent then people could use this to support applications for compensation from the MoJ.

Mr Buckle's barrister Stephen Vullo KC, who spoke to the conference remotely, said: "In my opinion there is no sensible argument against Buckles Law coming into force.

"In a situation as Brian's, after having a court ordered retrial and the person being found not guilty, the jury should be asked, having delivered a not guilty verdict as to whether they consider the person to be innocent based on the evidence."

He said this should be a matter for the jury to decide.

Mr Vullo said the standard for this could be brought down to the civil balance of probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt.

But, fellow barrister Matthew Scott, in the audience at the conference, said the proposed law risked creating two tiers of not guilty, with those who were deemed to be innocent with question marks over other people found not guilty who had not been "found innocent" by a jury.

Mr Buckle was convicted after the complainant’s dad told police in an unrelated police interview that he had sexuallyu abused his daughter when she was aged eight to ten.

He was convicted after his semen was found on the cover of the complainant's diary, something he had never seen.

Mr Buckle's barrister argued that his DNA must’ve been planted on the diary and potentially from a used condom.  

Forensic chemist Dr Candice Bridge analysed the semen in the diary, and gave evidence that elements of lubricant used in condoms were present.

Entries in the diary made by the complainant also made it clear she was referring to a different abuser.

And, note of her meetings with a counsellor showed the alleged abuse started two years before Mr Buckle met her.

Mr Buckle suffered PTSD after the wrongful conviction and lost a well-paid job he held for 16 years. He missed his daughter’s 18th and 21st birthdays, and his wife spent her inheritance in funding legal fees to secure his release.

He is one of a number of recent high-profile miscariage of justice cases.

These include Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years behind bars for rape.

He had his conviction quashed in 2023 after his lawyers tracked down DNA evidence that proved his innocence.

Peter Sullivan, 70, spent 38 years behind bars in a Category A prison after being convicted of the frenzied rape and murder of florist Diane Sindall, 21, who was killed as she left work in 1986.

He had his murder conviction overturned last year, in what is thought to be the longest-running miscarriage of justice in British history.

The MoJ has previously said of Mr Buckle's compensation refusal: “We acknowledge the grave impact miscarriages of justice have and are committed to supporting individuals in rebuilding their lives.

“The Law Commission is currently consulting on the law relating to criminal appeals, including compensation for miscarriages of justice. We will consider their findings before deciding on any action in this area.”