As many of you will know, recently Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced plans to ban convicted criminals from claiming under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act (CICA). Alongside this Clarke is planning on blocking claims for minor injuries and cutting overall reward amounts.
Under the proposed system what would that mean for the general public? People who are disfigured by criminal acts and suffer injuries such as burns or broken bones would be refused money and those suffering minor brain damage would see rewards cut by 25%. Loss of income cases could be capped at £12,600 all causing further limitations in an already inflexible system.
Many legal professionals and critics are alleging that this is political move and nothing more than a cost cutting activity for the CICA.
Partner and Personal Injury lawyer, Kate Sweeney of Leigh based law firm Stephensons Solicitors LLP doesn’t understand the need for the change:
“In real terms there are already considerable restrictions in place, and I doubt very much that the proposed changes will make any difference at all.”
That is not to say that currently the CICA is ideal. The rewards given are often not as effective as numerous people would like. Currently a loss of income claim can only be filed after 28 weeks. Although for those assaulted in cases which the attacker can not be identified the CICA is often their only option for compensation.
Kate voiced what seems to be a popular opinion on the issue saying,
“It appears to be very much a gesture of politics and one has to ask what these headlines are truly masking. Is it a smokescreen for deeper, widespread cuts to the CICA and an attempt to de-lawyer the process completely?”
Having submitted a great number of CICA applications throughout her extensive legal career Kate has not come across anyone with a criminal history receiving an award, with some payouts being reduced if the claimant has a number of driving offences.
It seems there is a certain moral argument here as to whether convicted criminals should be able to claim. Should we land on the side of human rights and agree that just because of someone’s past they shouldn’t be able to claim? Or should we be asking if it is right that someone who committed a terrible crime is eligible for compensation?
Comments