Alexander Harris Solicitors
Jump to navigation.

No Header

It is now ten years ago since the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was set up to provide compensation for the victims of crimes of violence within the United Kingdom. Its predecessor, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was overhauled in 1996 by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, MP.

For most of its history, compensation awards were set according to what the victim of the crime would have received in a successful civil claim for compensation against the offender. Thus, imagine the scene, all too common in today's world, your husband or father is walking home one evening when he is viciously set upon by a group of young thugs who beat him up and kick him about the head. He is brain damaged. This sadly leaves him with impaired speech, severe memory problems, little mobility and a total inability to work. He cannot properly access the bathroom or the toilet because both are upstairs. The children start to ask why dad is different and cannot express himself or why he cannot play with them like he used to.

Before 1996, the compensation award would have taken all matters into consideration, such as the need for different accommodation, the fact that dad could never work again and the need to be constantly looked after. Many such compensation awards from the old Criminal Injuries Compensation Board exceeded £1,000,000.

Since April 1996, however, the level of compensation has been determined according to a scale, or tariff, set by Parliament. This limits the amount of compensation to £250,000, but up to £500,000 in the most serious of cases.

The scheme, which was very strongly opposed by the union movement at the time, even to the extent of court action, cannot hope to fully take into consideration all of the complexities of serious injury. Undoubtedly, the driving force behind the introduction of the tariff scheme was cost, but at the expense of those most seriously injured.

The scheme is now the subject of further debate and possible further revision, ten years on from the 1996 scheme. Plans would appear to include removing the cap of £500,000 to assist those most seriously injured, but ensuring that the victims of less serious crimes are not compensated at all.

Ian Bailey, a specialist criminal injuries solicitor at Leeds law firm Irwin Mitchell, said:

"Yet again we are seeing the Government shuffling the pack at the expense of those injured by crimes of violence. If anyone has ever been robbed or attacked and managed to get away thankfully without serious injury, then they will understand the trauma of such an event in their lives. It cannot be right that the offender is punished by the criminal law and the victim is awarded no compensation for their injuries.

The driving force behind these potential changes was the dreadful attacks on London in July 2005. No one would ever consider that those victims should not be properly compensated but the fact remains that individuals and their families affected by serious crime have gone undercompensated for 10 years."

Ian, who has acted for many victims of crime added:

I believe strongly that as a responsible society, we should ensure proper compensation for all victims of crime.

If the new plans are implemented the Government's estimate is that up to 60% of applications to the Authority would be refused on the basis that their injury is not serious enough.

Back

Related news stories

If you believe that you might have a legal claim relating to this story, please complete the online enquiry form or call 0870 024 0558. Your enquiry will be forwarded to a solicitor who specialises in this area.

If you have any comments in relation to this story, please use the online discussion forum.

This news section contains stories of interest to our clients from publicly available news sources. Where we are representing the clients referred to in the news material we will say so. Where we do not represent individuals or bodies mentioned or quoted, the inclusion of the news story in our news section is not intended nor should it be taken to imply that we act for the individual or body concerned.