Barry George loses compensation bid for being wrongly convicted of Jill Dando's murder Barry George spent eight years in prison after being convicted of murder Sought compensation for his mistreatment but judges turned him down Today the Court of Appeal ruled that his case was not clear-cut enough to require a State pay-off Barry George was today denied compensation for the eight years he spent in prison after being wrongly convicted of the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando. He claimed to be the victim of a 'miscarriage of justice' - but judges agreed with a minister that Mr George was 'not innocent enough' to be eligible for a pay-off. The decision at the Court of Appeal followed the dismissal of his compensation claim by two High Court judges in January who said he had 'failed the legal test' to claim a pay-off. Defeat: Barry George, left, has been denied compensation for being wrongly convicted of killing Jill Dando, right Setback: A judge at the Court of Appeal decided that he was 'not innocent enough' to be compensated Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin had rejected his argument that the Justice Secretary was wrong to decide he was 'not innocent enough to be compensated', ruling that the Secretary of State was 'entirely justified in the conclusion he reached'. Lord Justice Richards, sitting at the Court of Appeal in London, today rejected an application by Mr George for permission to challenge the January decision and said the 53-year-old had 'no realistic prospects' of success. Mr George was seeking a fresh examination of his case which could allow him to claim up to £500,000 from the State for lost earnings and wrongful imprisonment. Miss Dando, the presenter of Crimewatch, was shot dead outside her home in Fulham, West London, in April 1999. Mr George was convicted of murdering her in 2001, but was acquitted after a retrial in 2008. Victim: Miss Dando's real killer has never been identified after Mr George was acquitted of murder in 2008 Barry George has been seeking compensation from the State ever since he was acquitted of Jill Dando's murder in August 2008. His initial claim was rejected in January 2010, but he launched a challenge to that decision based on a landmark Supreme Court ruling granting Andrew Adams compensation for the 14 years he spent in jail after being wrongfully convicted of murder. That case hinged on Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which says that victims of a 'miscarriage of justice' should be compensated by the State. However, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke told Mr George that his case did not qualify, because he was 'not innocent enough to be compensated'. In January this year, two High Court judges agreed with Mr Clarke, denying him compensation because his conviction was not so unfair as to count as a miscarriage of justice. Mr George's lawyer had argued that 'no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted on the evidence that was available to them', but the High Court judges concluded that this was incorrect and that a jury could reasonably have found him guilty. The decision at the Appeal Court today means that Mr George cannot challenge the High Court's decision any longer. After today's ruling, his sister Michelle Diskin said outside the Royal Courts of Justice that the Court of Appeal judge's decision was a 'travesty of justice'. With her brother standing by her side, she told reporters: 'There never was any viable evidence against Barry. This whole case from April 2000 until today has been a smoke and mirrors exercise designed to placate a worried public, and give the impression that justice had been done. Well neither the Dando family, nor our family, has seen any justice in the past 13 years. She added: 'Serving eight years in prison for someone else's crime is not acceptable. Everything was taken from this man when the police started what we believe to be a malicious prosecution. He lost his home, his furniture, his clothing and all of his possessions, his place within his community and his church family. Ms Diskin said the family would prepare to 'stand against this latest travesty of justice'. She concluded: 'Barry is innocent. He deserves a financial settlement to compensate for all that was taken from him - everything he owned and eight years of his life. During today's hearing Ian Glen QC, representing Mr George free of charge, submitted that the prosecution case against him was 'not viable and not a case where a reasonable jury could have convicted'. In arguing for permission to appeal, Mr Glen said: 'We seek an opportunity to make out our argument to the Secretary of State that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted on the evidence that was available to them at the retrial'. But the High Court judges concluded: 'There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted the claimant of murder.' Scene of the crime: Miss Dando was gunned down outside her home in Fulham, pictured Mr George's initial claim for compensation for lost earnings and wrongful imprisonment was rejected in January 2010. His legal challenge against that decision was put on hold until after a panel of nine Supreme Court justices gave their ruling in the case of Andrew Adams - a former aircraft engineer who spent 14 years in jail before his murder conviction was ruled unsafe. After the Adams ruling, Mr George was told by the Justice Secretary in June 2011 that he was still not entitled to compensation under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In January the High Court judges rejected Mr George's challenge along with three others, but they found in favour of Ian Lawless, who spent eight years behind bars for murder before being freed by the Court of Appeal in 2009. Mr Lawless was jailed for life in 2002 after confessing to the murder of retired sea captain Alf Wilkins on the Yarborough estate in Grimsby, Lincolnshire. The judges ruled that in his case the decision to refuse compensation was legally flawed and must be reconsidered in the light of their ruling. In Mr George's case the two High Court judges said: 'There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted the claimant of murder.' Permission to appeal has previously been granted in the three other cases dismissed by the High Court and a hearing at the Court of Appeal relating to those is expected in October.