Not innocent enough?

The question has arisen again about the right to compensation for those who have been found guilty, imprisoned and later had that conviction quashed on appeal.  You would think it would be a no-brainer.  If the system has failed, then it should compensate you for that failure, surely?  And yet, as we have seen previously (26/1/13) it ain't necessarily so.  But it seems things have got even worse since then. The most recent case involves a man who was found guilty of attempted rape back in 1997 and jailed for life (that in itself raises concerns - attempted rape = LIFE??) and has spent 17 years inside.  He could have been released after 7 years (the minimum term imposed by the judge) but was consistently refused parole because he continued to maintain his innocence and in order to get parole you have, among other things, to "accept your guilt".  Now DNA evidence has shown that someone else was involved and his conviction has been quashed.  So - compensation, yes?  Well no, apparently. The Justice Secretary, in refusing his claim, has said although he accepted the "real possibility" that the DNA evidence indicated that someone else was responsible, it did not show his innocence "beyond reasonable doubt".  Which of course raises the question of whether, on that basis, anybody will ever qualify for compensation.