Compensation for Victims of Crime

RoadPeace have 12 years of experience of supporting and acting as advocates for the bereaved and injured victims of road crashes and their families and carers. Through our Helpline, local groups and contacts we have knowledge of literally thousands of cases.

Three initial points:

1.We have found it very difficult to respond since the proposals are of a very general nature, whereas the questions are very detailed and require a great spread of specialised knowledge of alternatives, which very few consultees can have.

2.The proposals are clearly intended to save money by excluding employees from CICA while promising help to victims which may amount to very little of any real value. It is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens, particularly in this country where we do not have the right to bear arms or even to defend ourselves. It is therefore the responsibility of the state to compensate those whom it has failed to protect and not their employer.

3.Although the vast majority of victims never receive any compensation, depending on the circumstances of each case, it can be available from a variety of sources and it is difficult to make useful suggestions without considering very carefully how they will work together.

It must be the overall objective to provide adequate compensation to victims, not merely a token gesture. It is, therefore, important that this consultation is considered in tandem with two Law Commission Consultations on Damages for Wrongful death and for Psychological Suffering. Anyone affected by the sudden violent death of a child or spouse or sibling will be deeply affected and it is an additional victimisation that the law requires proof of a recognised psychological illness before providing any compensation.

RoadPeace recommended to the Law Commission that the bereavement award be increased to £10,000 for up to 5 close family members, and that the cut off at 18 be abolished. There should be a lump sum for funeral expenses of £5,000 plus counselling for close family members, if required.

This is very much a minimum, English law fails to compensate families for the loss of the society of someone who was killed, which is, in a loving family, the greatest loss.

A bereaved mother commented:
We received no money as compensation because Joel was over 21 years old. We have suffered mental and physical illness due to the trauma yet cannot claim anything and are just expected to carry on, so that we can pay the mortgage, loans and living expenses and for what? Lockerbie victims' families, New York victims' families and war families all receive compensation. Why not us?

As Joel's mother said, some bereaved families do receive compensation and the fact that some victims are treated with generosity and respect makes it so much worse.

This response includes a general section, a section, explaining the particular situation of road victims as well as the answers to your questions.

General

A. Funding Victims Charities

1. In principle, the use of a contribution from offenders as a means of funding victims' charities is welcome but this must be done in a way that is fair and equitable with priority given to organisations where victims themselves are involved. There must be a track record of providing a direct service to victims not just raising awareness or a talking shop.

At present only Victim Support is funded by government. It is already effectively a part of the Home Office and treated as such with automatic representation on any government body, which it wishes. It is a monopoly and is not run by victims, excluding them from its management. We would be very concerned if it was funded to expand further for a number of reasons. Two examples: Those, who feel that the police, CPS, Courts etc have let them down, will not be likely to approach an organisation so closely linked to those same authorities or to feel confident that it can support them: VS monopoly of both funding and direct referrals from the police makes it more and more difficult for small independent charities, who do give victims a direct voice, to operate.

Victims' charities range from one man or woman bands to relatively large national organisations. To date, the Home office has offered or refused representation to tiny organisations and larger ones indiscriminately, without any explanation, and without appreciating the difference in scale or that many are more about raising awareness and do not help victims directly. A great deal of money is currently squandered on attractive looking literature and advertising, which does not directly benefit victims.

The consultation envisages funding provided locally but, apart from Victim Support, victims charities are so under-funded that they can only operate nationally or in a few areas so that this will effectively prevent them from being eligible for grants from the Fund and, as now, prevent most victims from even hearing that they exist.

2. The contributions should be matched so that offenders compensate victims of their or their type of offences. Rapists to help fund Rape charities etc This would be much more meaningful to both offenders and victims and make sense to the public.

3. Road victims receive no government funding at present, whilst being the largest group of bereaved and injured victims. Since the majority of offending drivers, including those who kill, receive a fine and licence points, and traffic offences account for most fixed penalties, it is likely that traffic offenders will yield a significant part of the Fund. Money raised from traffic offenders should be ring fenced for road victims.

B. Direct Compensation to Victims through the courts

1.RoadPeace believe that the criminal justice system is as much about deterrence as punishment and that by making offenders responsible for their victims in a more direct way, they may face up to the consequences of their offending behaviour. By the state prosecuting, by the concept of offences against the state rather than the individual and by victims having little or no role in the criminal justice system, it is easy for offenders to ignore the effect of their actions on fellow human beings. Compensation paid direct to victims by offenders is important as a matter of principle.

2. Any financial help is likely to be welcome to victims, who often suffer considerable financial hardship, although it should not be seen as a full recompense for their loss. It may be said that £x is inadequate for a life but it is better than nothing. Victims, provided that they were aware that the compensation was not intended to provide full reparation for a loss of life or injury but to show appropriate remorse, would welcome it as a gesture from the offender and as a recognition of their own status by the courts.

Road Victims

It is important to appreciate that Road Victims are the most neglected by government and fund-givers, of all types of victims.

1. Road Victims suffer an additional victimisation in that, although the injuries are frequently more horrific than those from knives or guns and the death or injury equally sudden and violent, these incidents are commonly perceived as accidents, even when the person responsible is charged with an indictable offence.

The majority of drivers who kill or inflict serious injury are charged with Driving without Due Care and Attention, a summary offence which ignores the fact of the death or injury and leaves a convicted defendant only legally convicted of a driving offence and not of taking a life or destroying quality of life for ever. This means that an acknowledgement from the defendant, who injured or killed another person would mean a great deal to the family.

2. Most victims also suffer a significant financial loss as a result of their experience, and in some cases there is real hardship. Although many believe that we live in a 'compensation culture', the bereaved mostly receive only minimal amounts, for example, the parents of a bachelor or spinster over 18 receive only funeral expenses, unless they were dependants of their child. They receive nothing for legal representation or advice for an Inquest or civil or criminal proceedings, nothing for counselling or medical expenses or time off work or reduced ability to work as effectively as before. In most cases, they will only receive funeral expenses, and that only if they consult lawyers and the compensation will barely exceed the fees. We have known insurers reject the cost of a headstone as too costly to be covered by 'reasonable funeral expenses.'


The compensation for eg whiplash, back problems or injuries, which do not affect the ability to work is fairly small, although the effects may last for ever. The tiny number of huge awards will only arise in young people who are so badly injured that they will need 24 hour care for the rest of a predicted long life or very high earners, who have been injured and are unable to work; or their widows and children, if they are killed.

Many people cannot claim because the resources put into the investigation of road death and especially injury, are so slight in comparison with other types of crime. Most police forces continue to cut back on traffic police and trained crash investigators. Vital evidence may not be collected at the scene and if this is not done at the time, it cannot be obtained later by civil lawyers. When someone has been killed or head injured, as is usually the case, they cannot give their version of events, whilst the driver responsible will receive maximum assistance from his insurers to escape liability. Unless there is a criminal prosecution, it may not be possible to bring a civil case.

1.Page13 Questions

1. Compensation orders could be used more than at present for all types of offenders. Corporate offenders could afford to compensate adequately eg in HSE cases

2. If the principle that financial penalties must be capable of being paid within 1 year by the offender was abandoned. Where a death or serious injury was caused, it is reasonable for the offender to be required to pay after he has left prison.

3.It is said that the courts do not offer compensation because they are not informed whether the victim wishes it or not. The Victim Personal Statement Scheme expressly provides for this information to be obtained by the investigating team. Even if the victims do not wish to make a VPSS, they could be asked if they would like compensation. We would like to see this on a police check list. Alternately, the courts could routinely award compensation and if the victim does not want it, he can offer it to a charity of his choice.

Guidelines issued to Magistrates give the suggested compensation for each of a list of personal injuries but do not include Death or serious injuries from which the victim does not recover within 6 months.

4.There is no reason why rich offenders should not pay more. Jeffery Archer and others could even pay for the cost of their own custody.

5.Magistrates and Judges must be offered guidance and their reasons for not using compensation orders (We understand this is obligatory) must be scrutinised. The fact that the Courts are evaluated on their record for collecting fines will encourage minimum financial penalties.

It is vital that expectations are not raised (see ante ). The problem of an insultingly low amount would be overcome by explanatory publicity. Small amounts could have a value both to the victim and in the rehabilitation of the offender, even if a prisoner cannot pay much.

Page 18

1.The levels seem reasonable

2.It could be paid in priority to other financial penalties other than compensation Explanations by victims of the effect on them in court and through explanatory publicity could change offenders attitudes.

3.and 4. We do not see why there should not be a surcharge on parking or waiting offences provided that it is allocated to road victims. (We do not comment on absolute or conditional discharges because we do not know enough about the circumstances in which these are given). Unless the compensation recipient is matched to the offence, the process will invite ridicule. Comments have already been made that help for murder victims might be funded by people who have simply not had the change for a parking meter, while the murderer pleads poverty.

5. It would be just for rich or more serious offenders to pay more but the system would be more complicated. It may be better to adopt a fixed tariff initially for practical reasons.

6. Voluntary work outside prison is a privilege to be earned not a punishment. It is unpaid, so cannot be used to pay compensation. Many offenders have never worked and will be unemployable, charities should be able to decide whether someone is suitable as a volunteer or not, rather than be required to take someone who is of no use, with all the extra expense of supervising him, just to make him feel better. Ideally, compensation should be funded from earnings.

There would be great value in individually tailored programmes for prisoners, with the informed agreement of the victim, but the resources of the prison service are currently far short of being able to deliver this.

Page19

1.The government should be able to recover payments from the offender, by attaching earnings or even a charge on his property.

2.The cost of recovering payment may be disproportionate to the amount actually recovered but the principle is right. It may be that if offenders were pursued rigorously, they might change their ways.

3. A charge on an offender's home would only affect those who had homes. Since however, research shows that a relatively small number of offenders commit most crime, it should be cost effective to pursue them rigorously. It will be a matter of resources and properly trained personnel.
It would be even more costly to follow the future progress of the offender to see if he had a windfall but this should happen in theory.

Page 22

1.The existing law provides civil and criminal remedies for those injured at work, if the employer is at fault. An employer should take out adequate insurance and has responsibilities to set up safe systems of operating to minimise the risks. The greater the risk, the greater the duty to assess and minimise that risk. An employer may be guilty of corporate manslaughter, if he fails to do so.

If however, an employer is not at fault nor legally liable, it seems wrong for him to be required to pay compensation. If there is a high risk of death or injury, this must be due to the failure of the state to provide a police service, which ensures public safety. Some injured employees will be security guards, employed precisely because the state security system is not adequate. They are amongst the most vulnerable, as it is a job, which only those who have little choice will take: ex prisoners, older people.

If employers are irresponsible, it is no solution to penalise their employees by excluding them from current access to compensation, unless something is offered in its place.

2. If it is a state responsibility, as I believe it to be, it matters very little whether it is discharged through CICA or some other body.

3.No. It is not the firms' responsibility.

4. Security firms- It should be a condition of a licence to operate for a security firm to have adequate insurance and to have a rigorous risk assessment and safe operating systems.
Banks, Post Office and 24 hour shops - of these only Banks could afford private schemes.
Police injuries should be paid for by each police authority.

5. Risk assessment (see 1 above).
The state cannot discharge its responsibility to its citizens by telling them to set up compensation schemes or take out insurance.

Page 22 column 2

1.Compensation for railway workers is not a criminal injury matter, especially as suicide is not a crime and was not in 1990. It is not logical to include it.

2.The alternatives will be the same as for bus drivers, who have similar experiences. Since this is an eventuality of which the employers are fully aware as incidental to the job, it should be their responsibility to compensate, develop counselling support.

Page 33

1.Encouraging people to take out insurance that they cannot afford is not an acceptable alternative to providing a proper service from the police to prevent crime. The insurance industry has already proved itself to be a false security for pensions. The huge size of the industry is itself undesirable and, for example, has a distorting effect on the Stock market. There is a clear conflict of interest between Insurers' need to maximise profits for their shareholders and the interests of victims. No partnership would overcome this.

Insurance profits should be channelled into services for victims but as a levy not by involving then as partners. There must be no trade offs. In Switzerland, the industry funds centres for road victims, where various types of help, legal, psychological can be accessed. This could be done in UK, in cities.

2.The alcohol industry should also be required to contribute to victims of alcohol excess /abuse by a levy and not a partnership.

In many countries, it is an offence to sell alcohol to someone who is already drunk but this happens all the time in UK. It is also a practice in the North East, to put an apparent drunk in a taxi and drop him off at a distance from a pub/club / hotel, regardless of the risk to him. There must be a stricter definition of the duty of care to customers and the public linked to a licence and the same applies to the industry generally.

Page 25

1.Road victims receive no statutory funding in spite of their numbers and should be a priority.

2.Local agencies may not be the best able to help. Small, specialised charities should be able to be accessed by victims at national level. Victims should be informed of all sources of help, whether they are all funded or not.

3.There must be a respect for the work done by specialist charities, who have put time and thought into developing cost effective ways of delivering a service. One to one support is very expensive and the Victim Support model is not the only one. Helplines could be funded to give support immediately to anyone in any area.

4. Local bodies should have victim representation and apply consistent criteria and a transparent process.

5. There are in fact very few agencies to deliver services to victims. Unfortunately, if funding is available, more may appear but without the necessary experience.

Volunteers are not easy to find with the necessary skills. Centres would be a way of providing help in one place and local professionals might be willing to give their time pro bono for limited periods.

6. Support could be in the form of referrals by police, CPS, coroners and other professionals who come into contact with victims, informing them about all the sources of help and support available at the earliest opportunity.

7. A proportion of the Fund should be distributed to national charities for national services like Helplines.

Zoe Stow, Chair RoadPeace