More compensation sought for `UDR Four' member

A member of the "UDR Four" received £400,000 compensation after he was cleared of murder, it was revealed in the High Court in…

A member of the "UDR Four" received £400,000 compensation after he was cleared of murder, it was revealed in the High Court in Belfast yesterday.

But Mr James Hegan (49) thinks it is not enough and asked a judge for more. His lawyer claimed the figure should have been increased by £60,000 to compensate him for being kept apart from his wife and children while behind bars.

Mr Hegan was convicted in 1986 with three other UDR soldiers of murdering Mr Adrian Carroll in Armagh three years earlier. But his conviction was quashed in 1992, along with those of two comrades, after the Appeal Court held that new scientific evidence (ESDA) had revealed that RUC officers had rewritten interview notes and appended false authentications.

Mr Hegan, who always maintained his innocence, applied for compensation under the Criminal Justice Act, and an independent assessment was carried out by Mr Nicholas Hanna QC. He assessed compensation at £400,000, which was paid to Mr Hegan in four instalments.

READ MORE

Mr Hegan applied yesterday for a judicial review of his compensation on the grounds that Mr Hanna had erred in his assessment of non-pecuniary loss by disregarding the fact that at the time he was arrested he was married with three young children.

His lawyer, Mr Reginald Weir QC, said Mr Hegan had spent eight years and eight months in prison while his children were growing up, yet this had not been taken into account in assessing compensation. "He must also be compensated for damage to his character and reputation, the hardship he endured in prison and injury to his feelings caused by having been wrongly convicted."

Mr Ronald Weatherup QC, for the NIO, said the assessment had been arrived at on a comparative basis with other cases and in particular with Mr "A". He said that person was not married but had parents and sisters, and although there were differences they were not compensatory.

"The assessor found there were no financial differences, and we say that is a position that cannot be set aside as being perverse," he said. Mr Justice Kerr reserved judgment.