Legal services: Tough on crime? Tougher on the victims of crime

The Government launched its first attack on victims of crime when it abolished the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (launched in 1964) replacing it and its system of compensating victims of crime with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and its tariff based system of compensation in 1996. The POA was one of the Unions who fought against its introduction at the time.

This new Scheme was revised in 2001 but the injustices introduced by stealth in 1996 remained.

In December 2005 without any significant publicity the Government issued a Green Paper, no doubt hoping its impact would be lessened by the timing of its release. Titled "Rebuilding Lives - supporting victims of crime" you could be forgiven for thinking this was a sincere attempt to put right the wrongs done in 1996. Any cursory reading of this 50 page document would soon show that such a view was unjustified.

The current tariff scheme

There are many injustices in this Scheme which I personally have campaigned against since its introduction. I highlighted many of these in a speech at the Learning & Development Conference jointly hosted by the POA & NAPO in March 2005 asking Martin Narey, then with NOMS, to work with the POA in campaigning for justice for POA Members.

I have also highlighted these issues in a number of articles some of which can be found on our website www.llwpoa.co.uk

These injustices include the following -

• The fact that compensation is calculated by reference to fixed tariffs and not the individual circumstances of each case. Until 1990 compensation was calculated by the CICB in the same way as a Judge would when dealing with a civil claim;
• An Applicant who sustained 3 separate injuries has compensation for the second and third most serious injuries reduced by 70% and 85% respectively. No compensation at all is payable for a 4th specific injury;
• No compensation is paid for loss of earnings for the first 28 weeks of absence - not a problem for POA Members who should remain on full pay throughout the entire absence period but this is an issue for many others;
• "Special Expenses" - are defined as including physical aids, treatment costs, and private health care. These are only payable by the CICA when an Applicant is absent from work for longer than 28 weeks and suffers a loss of earnings as a result. This will not arise for POA Members so all sorts of treatment costs (Physiotherapy, Dental, Chiropractor etc) have to be funded by the Applicant thereby reducing the real value of any Award made for the injuries sustained;
• It is subject to a maximum level of compensation (£500K to include compensation for injury, loss of earnings and special care) - making it impossible now for us to get the Award we did for a Swinfen Hall POA Member of just under £lm. Views on whether this upper limit should be increased are requested by the Government;
• if injury is sustained accidentally while preventing the commission of further offences then the Applicant has to have taken an "exceptional risk;"

In addition, my experience of representing thousands of POA Members in respect of CICA Applications shows that the CICA will take any opportunity to refuse an Award where it believes there has been any failure to follow any of its rigid Procedures having long since forgotten why they were invented - to deliver compensation to victims of crime.

Fairness, common sense and compassion are all rare commodities when dealing with this organisation.

The green paper

The Ministerial Foreword is the work of Fiona Mactaggart MP Parliamentary under Secretary of State for the Home Office. The opening sentence is consistent with the title - it gives false hope to the reader -

"The Government is determined to better meet the needs of victims of crime".

The Scheme is like any Government creature - it is subject to fiscal control and monitoring so is the problem that the number of victims of crime has soared out of control making the cost of administering the CICA unsustainable? Even if that is the case surely where a system designed to compensate victims of crime exists the amount it pays out should not be subject to the notorious Key Performance Indicators so loved by this Government? But read on and see what Fiona says next-

"The good news is that the number of people who are victims of crime has fallen by 40% compared to ten years ago"

Home Office statistics show that the chance of being a victim of crime is at its lowest for more than 20 years - try discussing that on any Prison Landing! She goes on to say -

"Many victims need better practical support, as quickly as possible after the crime, such as help with improving home security and services that provide emotional support.......On the issue of financial support, many victims of crime could be better served by radically improving practical and emotional support, rather than through relatively small payments from the CICA, which arrive a long time after the incident........................ So we propose a major simplification of the compensation scheme and increasing the amount of support provided to most victims of serious crimes...."

For the purposes of this preliminary response to the Green Paper I will focus on how the proposed changes will impact on POA Members but bear in mind the implications for all victims of crime. Consider the following -

• the strength of the POA membership in public and private sector Prisons, Special Hospitals, Immigration Detention Centres and other secure Establishments;
• the threats faced by POA Members - assaults, psychiatric trauma, exposure to contamination from bodily fluids, TB etc;
• the unique nature of the work POA Members do;
• the number of Applications submitted by the POA to the CICA each year;
• the fact that at local and national level the Prison Service can fund from existing resources Counselling and other similar support;
• "home security" is rarely an issue when a POA Member is assaulted at work but equally how often is expenditure incurred by your Employer as a result of lessons learnt from your assault?

next >