IN ENGLAND, AN INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE MAY BE DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN ARREST AND TRIAL, OR IF CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THOUGHT TO WARRANT IT, HE MAY BE GIVEN A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE. AS A RESULT OF DETENTION, THE INDIVIDUAL IS DEPRIVED OF HIS COURT OT ASCERTAIN WHICH ARRESTEES ARE FROM THE AREA, SUPERVISE AND PROVIDE COUNSELING FOR RELEASEES, AND OCCURRED, THE ACCUSED MAY BE GRANTED A PARDON, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS AN ACQUITTAL. THE ONLY RELIEF AN UNJUSTLY DETAINED MAY RECEIVE FOR HIS LOSSES IN AN EX GRATIA PAYMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. SUCH PAYMENTS ARE GRANTED ONLY IN CASES OF HARDSHIP, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS THE RESULT OF OFFICIAL NEGLIGENCE. SUCH A PAYMENT DOES NOT INDICATE AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY. ADOPTION OF A STATUTORY SCHEME OF COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PROPOSED; HOWEVER, A NUMBER OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A SCHEME WILL FIRST REQUIRE RESOLUTION. THE TYPE OF DETENTION QUALIFYING FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE DECIDED UPON. IN GERMANY, COMPENSATION MAY BE GRANTED FOR ANY WRONGFUL DETENTION, AND IN SOME CASES FOR WRONGFUL ARREST, HOSPITAL DETENTION, OR SUSPENSION OF DRIVING PRIVILEGES. IN AMERICA, COMPENSATION IS LIMITED TO THOSE UNJUSTLY CONVICTED AND DETAINED WHO HAVE RECEIVED A PARDON. FOR THE NEW COMPENSATION SYSTEM, A STANDARD FOR PROOF OF INNOCENCE MUST ALSO BE ESTABLISHED. IN GERMANY, ANY TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED IS SUFFICIENT FOR A COMPENSATION CLAIM, WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES REQUIRE CLEAR PROOF OF INNOCENCE. DISCRETION WILL BE NEEDED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED. TYPES OF DAMAGE (SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, MATERIAL) COMPENSABLE AND THE LIMITS OF COMPENSATION MUST BE DETERMINED. IN MOST EXISTING SCHEMES ONLY THE DEFENDANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE MAY MAKE CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION, AND A LIMITATION PERIOD FOR CLAIMS IS USUALLY ESTABLISHED. ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A SCHEME IS COMPLEX; MOST COUNTRIES ADMINISTER COMPENSATIONS THROUGH A COURT, AN INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL, OR BOTH. OPPONENTS OF COMPENSATION ARGUE THAT A STATUTORY SCHEME WOULD BE COSTLY, WOULD REWARD CRIMINAL WHO ESCAPE JUSTICE, AND WOULD ONLY DUPLICATE THE REMEDIES ALREADY AVAILABLE THROUGH EXISTING ENGLISH LAW. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT VICTIMS OF WRONGFUL DETENTION SHOULD BE COMPENSATED, AND A COMPENSATION SCHEME PATTERNED AFTER THOSE AVAILABLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES COULD PROVE WORKABLE. (JAP)