Case overturned - probably guilty - deserves compensation?

As this is a matter of some debate at the moment - particularly in The Guardian - it is perhaps worthwhile giving a perspective.

The overturning of a conviction is emphatically not the same thing as 'proving that X or Y was innocent' - however much one might think so from the way an over-excited media deals with these reversals.
In practice - in precisely the same way that almost all found 'not guilty' in trials have actually 'done the deed' - the vast majority are indeed guilty. So who in their right mind would want to award them compensation?
The root cause of what seems to be a paradox is that in our nation, we require guilt to be established 'beyond reasonable doubt' rather than 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I was in the courts for ten years and I can assure readers that 'innocence' is a very rare commodity indeed. You are far more likely to find cases that 'perhaps should never have been brought' than actual innocence.
On many occasions have I found people I fully believed to be guilty, 'not guilty', because of the principles named above - simply because all the ducks were not lined up in a neat row!
Only if outright innocence is determined should compensation be awarded - and under such circumstances should then be very generous indeed.
Such decisions could be subjected to 'the' balance of probabilities' test - as this has effectively become a civil law decision.