Today’s story about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority being caught out cutting awards to rape victims who’d been drinking before they were attacked reminds me of the days when I used to take on criminal injuries compensation appeals. Here’s the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme; you’ll see that paragraph 14 provides that

a claims officer may withhold or reduce an award where he considers that excessive consumption of alcohol or use of illicit drugs by the applicant contributed to the circumstances which gave rise to the injury in such a way as to make it inappropriate that a full award, or any award at all, be made.

There’s also a guide to the scheme, which at Part IV, para. 16 (pages 25-26) I think quite wrongly suggests that paragraph 14 of the Scheme requires the CICA to consider whether a victim’s drinking contributed to the attack. Perhaps this is how the practice of reducing rape awards came about.

I’m not going to slag off the CICA or the scheme: I think it’s right that the scheme provides for reductions in awards – or a complete refusal of compensation – where an applicant has contributed to what happened. The classic example is a fight, of course. And I also think that ruling on these awards is a difficult job.

I think it’s right to focus on political responsibility here, though. I suspect this obviously wrong practice has grown up because of pressure from ministers to ensure as little taxpayer’s money as possible is given out in compensation. This story also shows, sadly, how much more effective publicity can be at changing government policy on this kind of thing, and how ineffective the appeal system is in comparison.

2008-08-12T16:20:00+00:00Tags: , , |