Victims of violent crimes are being compensated too slowly, the National Audit Office has said.
Its report said the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority took an average of 515 days to resolve cases in 2006/7 - up from 364 days in 1998/9.
The public accounts committee chairman, Tory MP Edward Leigh, said the service was “slowly grinding to a halt”.
The CICA said it was aware of the failings and had made “major changes” in 2006 to “improve performance”.
Thousands waiting
Over the last year, the public body received 61,000 applications for compensation and paid out £192m to victims.
The authority is supposed to offer relief and help people who have been through traumatic experiences, but too often it adds to victims’ woes
Edward Leigh MP
But although there was a 23% fall in the number of applications it received each year from 1998/9 to 2006/6 - in line with the fall in violent crime over the same timeframe - the average time take to resolve the cases rose by more than 40%.
There is now a backlog of more than 81,000 people who are still waiting to find out if they will receive compensation.
Mr Leigh said: “Applications are falling and the cost of processing a case is rising. In short, the taxpayer is paying even more money for a worse service.
“The authority is supposed to offer relief and help people who have been through traumatic experiences, but too often it adds to victims’ woes.”
Victims of violent crime who apply for compensation deserve a good standard of service
Carole Oatway
CICA
There are 25 levels of compensation award given to crime victims, ranging from £1,000 to £250,000, depending on the severity of the injury.
In the most serious cases, additional compensation is available to help cover lost earnings, as well as medical and care expenses.
The NAO blamed “bureaucratic and repetitive” processes for the delays, adding that application forms were long and difficult to complete.
It said that to improve the service, the body needed better communication with potential applicants and people who had already applied for assistance.
‘Missed targets’
The report also said the CICA should provide guidance on what information was essential in order to improve the completeness of applications and reduce ineligible claims.
NAO head Sir John Bourn said: “The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority’s performance has got worse since I last reported on it in 2000.
“It is taking longer to deal with cases, it has not reduced the number of ineligible applications and has frequently missed its targets over the years.”
However, he said he expected the body would “make swift improvements in the service it provides to victims”, and that the CICA had started a “major overhaul of how it operates”.
Carole Oatway, who became CICA chief executive in September as part of a reform programme, welcomed its publication as “a key contribution to the work already underway to improve its performance”.
She said: “Victims of violent crime who apply for compensation deserve a good standard of service from CICA.
“We know that for many innocent victims of violent crime, a compensation payment from CICA is one of the key things they receive to
A disabled former soldier is suing three London bus companies over faulty wheelchair ramps and abuse allegedly hurled at him by drivers.
John Finnie, who is paralysed from the waist down after an army accident, claims he has had problems getting on and off buses hundreds of times.
He says that on one occasion he was left locked inside a bus on his own during a bomb scare. Mr Finnie, 64, from Kingsbury, north west London, also complains that some drivers cannot be bothered to operate the retractable ramps properly and swear at him.
He is alleging disability discrimination in separate claims against Metroline, First Centrewest and London Sovereign - using records he has kept of more than 100 alleged incidents in the past year alone.
He is seeking a declaration that the bus companies have unlawfully discriminated against him and total compensation of around £15,000 for “loss of dignity”.
Mr Finnie served for nine years in the Blues and Royals but was medically discharged in 1974 after a riding accident in which a horse landed on him. He has had a string of operations on his spine but became paralysed in February 2005.
He also suffers from a heart condition and relies on his electric wheelchair to get around. Mr Finnie said today: “I use the buses almost every day to go and see friends, for shopping and hospital visits.
“The majority of drivers are brilliant but half of them are not properly trained and there are a significant minority who do not give a monkey’s and whose attitude stinks. I don’t expect them to be fawning all over me. I just want to be treated with respect.”
A Metroline spokesman said: “Every effort is made to ensure that wheelchair ramps on our vehicles are working correctly and our staff perform-in a professional manner. Any complaints of poor performance we have received from Mr Finnie have been investigated, provided we were given sufficient details, and appropriate action taken.”
A London Sovereign spokesman said: “All bus ramps are checked every morning before leaving the garages and all drivers are fully trained in ramp operation.”
First Centrewest said Mr Finnie’s claim was being handled by the firm’s solicitors. A Transport for London spokeswoman said: “Wheelchair ramps must be working when buses leave their garage in the morning and drivers receive full training in how to use this equipment.”
SANTA Claus’ headquarters in Lapland would be an epicentre of litigation if employment regulations and EU law were imposed or observed during the run up to Christmas.
But the potential for legal action in a fantasy land could provide some real insights to be carried over into the real world of employment.
Employment lawyer Jonathan Whittaker, of Cheshire law firm SAS Daniels, says Santa’s workshops would provide a field day for lawyers looking after the interests of his staff.
“There’s no doubt that Santa would find himself paying thousands in compensation and possibly even be banged up if the working practices applied at his workshops were present in a real world place of employment,” said Jonathan.
“For starters, while the elves may well have been planning, producing and sourcing perennial high-demand toys such as train sets, rocking horses and bicycles during the year, most children will have started to hand in their Christmas lists quite late in the day - and they will often list items which are in high-demand or short supply.
“This could lead to the elves working longer than the 48- hour working week and being subjected to unreasonable stress and pressure, possibly causing sickness and absence.
“This could lead to disputes and quite possibly litigation - there are clear parallels with the real world here.
“The application of EU laws - which apply in Lapland - would also mean Christmas Eve would last for four days as Santa would be obliged to take statutory breaks during the delivery round, plus rest time in between shifts.
“This would mean that Santa will have to work quicker, meaning more work in less time risking injury to both himself and his reindeer.
“If Santa stuck to the rules, then he would still be delivering three days after Christmas - a bit like some online retailers - and children getting their presents on December 28 are unlikely to appreciate Santa putting his feet up for a few hours in between deliveries.
“Nevertheless, back in the real world this serves to remind employers and employees that there are rules and regulations relating to breaks and time off, and they risk potential stress-related claims if those rules and regulations are broken.”
A man left in a vegetative state after being knocked down by a drunk joyrider has been granted millions of pounds in compensation despite a legal challenge from insurers.
Gary Dawes, 44, suffered severe brain damage and broke almost every bone in his body when he was hit by 19-year-old Craig Aldis outside his home in Lynchet Close in Hollingdean, Brighton.
Insurance company NIG claimed he forfeited the right to compensation because he was partly to blame but a High Court judge decided he was due the damages to pay for the 24-hour care he will need for the rest of his life.
The former painter and decorator, now being treated in a rehabilitation centre in Northampton, was granted the money in a court case in July but the insurance firm responsible for the stolen car Aldis was driving decided to appeal the decision.
It said Mr Dawes should be held partly responsible for the accident because he had been drinking heavily on the night and had stepped into the road to “remonstrate” with the driver.
They said his damages payout should be significantly reduced as a result.
But the case was thrown out by a top judge who said there was no way anyone could know for sure how Mr Dawes came to be in the road when the tragic incident happened in February 2003.
Lord Justice Tuckey said: “Although it is possible that Mr Dawes had been guilty of contributory negligence the insurers had not established that to be so as a matter of probability.”
Sheila Riches, the solicitor representing Mr Dawes, said: “This is a brilliant result because he is going to require care for the rest of his life and any reduction in the amount of money he would receive would affect the level of care he could afford.
“Otherwise he would have had to rely on the state.
“The insurers said he went into the road so was partly to blame for the accident but we do not know where he was when he was knocked down.
“He could have been trying to get away.”
An earlier court hearing heard how for years Lynchet Close had been a magnet for joyriders because of its steeply-sloping curve and on the night in question Aldis, now 23, was driving up and down, revving the engine and making handbrake turns.
His path had been blocked by plain clothes police officers but he went on to the pavement to avoid them and sped off at 50mph on the wrong side of the road when he struck Mr Dawes, who was catapulted over the car.
Aldis stopped the car and ran off after the accident. He later pleaded guilty to pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle-taking and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.
The exact amount Dawes will receive is yet to be agreed but in similar cases multi-million pound sums have been awarded.
A mother who was freed after being wrongly convicted and imprisoned for manslaughter in a “shaken baby” case lost her High Court bid for compensation today.
Lorraine Harris, 38, claimed she had suffered a “miscarriage of justice” after her conviction for the manslaughter of four-month-old son Patrick was declared “unsafe” and quashed by the Court of Appeal.
But today Mr Justice Mitting rejected her challenge to the Home Secretary’s refusal to compensate her.
The judge said: “All the Court of Appeal decided was that new evidence created the possibility that, when taken with the evidence given at the trial, a jury might properly acquit her.
“That falls well short of demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that there was a miscarriage of justice in this case.”
The judge said there had been “powerful evidence” against Ms Harris, formerly of Long Eaton, Derbyshire.
It would have been for a jury to determine the issue. But the appeal court did not order a retrial as Ms Harris had served her three-year jail sentence and a new trial would have been pointless and not in the public interest, said the judge.
The mother was convicted of manslaughter at Nottingham Crown Court in September 2000.
A jury found that Patrick was the victim of “shaken baby syndrome”, and that a “triad” of injuries showed that his death in December 1999 was not an accident.
These included swelling of the brain, bleeding between the brain and skull and bleeding in the retina of the eyes.
But the jury verdict was declared “unsafe” by the Court of Appeal in July 2005 and the mother’s conviction quashed.
By the time of the appeal, lawyers argued medical opinion had changed, making the convictions unsafe. They said new research since 2001 had led to a reappraisal.
Ms Harris applied to the Home Office for compensation under section 133 of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act.
Her claim was refused on the basis that her conviction had been quashed because of a change in medical opinion, and not because any “newly discovered fact” had come to light since her trial.
Mr Justice Mitting said the refusal was based on too narrow a construction of the law that was “seriously unjust”.
He said: “It matters not whether a miscarriage of justice occurs as a result of a new fact or new opinion, as occurred in this case.”
The family of a Wigan schoolboy whose leg was broken during a martial arts lesson are locked in a legal fight with his instructors.
Jay Howlett was only six when he suffered a double fracture in an accident at Leigh Thai Kick Boxing Club more than three years ago.
But when his parents put in a compensation claim to the club’s insurance scheme,the club issued a counter-claim, suing Jay’s dad for failing to supervise him.
At their home in Park Road, Hindley, Mark and Angela Howlett say they cannot understand why the club, owned by Robert Sharpley, will not let what appears to them a straightforward claim for £2,000 to £3,000 run its course.
Mr Sharpley’s legal team are keeping tight-lipped at this stage, but their counter-claim suggests that Mr Howlett should have been keeping his youngster under tighter control.
The two parties do not dispute the sequence of events. Mr Howlett had accompanied his son to a session at the club off Chapel Street in October 2004 when he was due to take his first grading exam.
At one point Jay ran over to where his dad was sitting. Mr Howlett told
him to go back to the other children but, within a few steps of returning, the accident happened.
Two men had been practising throws, and as Jay passed them, one landed on top of him, snapping his tibia and fibula in the process.
The Hindley Junior and Infants School pupil was taken to Wigan Infirmary for treatment.
He also had to return there several days later to have the bones re-set because they were not fusing properly. He returned to the club with his leg in plaster to watch his cousins who were still attending, but after his injuries healed he did not return to the sport, his confidence gone.
Part of the subscription fee went towards insurance against accidents, so the Howletts put in a claim. But after a year and no response they began to realise it was not going to be as straightfor
ward as they had envisaged. Then they discovered that Mr Sharpley and his insurers were suing Mr Howlett.
He said: “I am disgusted by this obstruction and counter-claim. What do you pay insurance for at the club if it isn’t for accidents like this?
“They are suggesting that I was supervising him. But there was no requirement for me even to be there.
“Half the parents drop their kids off and go home. Would they have been negligent if their child had been injured in their absence?
“It’s not as if we are claiming a huge amount of money. It’s a maximum £2,000 to £3,000 – sufficient for the inconvenience caused.”
A spokesman for London-based legal firm Eastwoods, which is representing Mr Sharpley’s insurers, said: “It would be wrong for anyone to make any assertions until the matters are resolved further. The matter is on-going and it is not fair to make any comment at this stage.”
RUBBERNECKING at a parked car on the Heysham bypass drew a driver’s attention away from the road and he hit another vehicle on his side of the carriageway.
The van Gareth Fawcett, 28, of Carr Lane, Heysham was driving ended up down an embankment on its side.
He had taken his boss’s vehicle without permission and failed to stop and report the accident to police, walking away from the scene towards Heysham.
At Lancaster Magistrates court he pleaded guilty to taking a vehicle without consent and causing damage to another car, failing to stop after an accident, failing to report an accident, driving without a full licence, and having no insurance for the vehicle.
Prosecuting, Peter Bardsley said: “On September 6 Mr Wareing, the aggrieved, was driving his BMW from Heysham to Lancaster that day and noticed a green Yaris with its hazards on on the opposite side of the road and an elderly woman standing there, looking vulnerable.
“He stopped his car and put the hazards on and also put a warning triangle in the carriageway near the Yaris.
“The elderly woman was distressed and infirm and told him the clutch had gone.
“He rung a garage and they said they were on the way.
“He then noticed a blue Transit van heading towards them at around 80mph in a 50mph zone, with one person in the van looking at him and the broken down car.
“The next
thing there was a loud bang and the van had collided with the BMW, shunting it.
“The van went sliding down an embankment and as Mr Wareing was running across the road he rang the police.
“The van was on its side and the defendant jumped out of the window, swearing at Mr Wareing and blaming him for parking his car on the road.”
Magistrates ordered Fawcett to pay £250 compensation and £50 costs and handed down a community order with supervision for 12 months.
He was also disqualified from driving for 12 months. Defending, David Mainwaring said: “There had been difficulties with him seeing his children and he had been taking legal advice.
“Fawcett doesn’t accept he was speeding. As he was driving along the road his attention was drawn to an incident on the opposite side of the road.
“He looked away and clipped the BMW causing damage to that car and the van he was driving.”
A GRANDFATHER who has watched four friends and former colleagues die of the same asbestos-related disease he suffers from, has been denied the right to claim compensation by the Court of Appeal.
Retired heating engineer David McGovern, from Woodhouses, worked for a Stretford firm called William Matthews between 1959 and 1978, where he used to lag boilers and heating pipes.
Six years ago he began having breathing problems and was diagnosed with pleural plaques – an irreversible scarring to the lungs and diaphragm caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos.
The disease has had a profound affect on the 64-year-old, both physically and emotionally. Even the simplest household task like climbing the stairs leaves the once super-fit footballer and non- smoker gasping for air.
But it’s the fear that more serious respiratory diseases, such as mesothelioma or lung cancer, could develop that David and his family struggle to cope with – not least after watching David’s friends and former work colleagues die within a few years of each other.
David, of Medlock Road, is due to have his first x-ray in six years this week and will find out if the disease has spread.
“When I was first diagnosed it was hard for my family but we have come to live with it,” he said.
But added: “It worries me that the scarring on my lungs could develop into something more serious – especially after what I’ve seen happen to the others. There were five of us who were friends, and it’s just me left now.”
David is also battling prostate cancer, which he was diagnosed with two years ago.
However, he has now been denied the chance of providing his family with financial security if anything happens to him.
Last month, the House of Lords upheld a 2006 ruling by the Court of Appeal that people exposed to asbestos can no longer claim compensation for pleural plaques. Apparently, it is considered by some specialists to be the most ‘benign’ of all asbestos-related diseases.
The verdict affects thousands and the trade union Amicus and law firms, including David’s, have pledged to fight to re-instate compensation.
David wants the compensation to help support his wife Christine, their three children and grandchild.
“This is an industrial injury where working with asbestos had consequences,” he added. “The exposure to asbestos was due to the negligence of my employers. I need to think about the future of my family.”
Tony Whitson, from the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims’ Support Group, said of pleural plaques: “This is a disease which affects working class people who were wrongly exposed to asbestos.
“It is all too easy for those who never risked their lives in industry to dismiss the suffering of so many who did.”
A FORMER army corporal from Blyth who was told to ‘act like a psycho’ during a training exercise has been awarded £25,000 after a resulting injury cut short his army career.
Daniel Brosnan was serving with the Second Battalion Royal Fusiliers in Northern Ireland when he dislocated his shoulder during a riot control training exercise at police headquarters in November 2003.
During the exercise, 34-year-old Mr Brosnan was put in a cell, told to pretend he had been drinking, and act like a psycho, while the rest of his company entered the cell in groups of three to restrain him.
Mr Brosnan feared he had broken his arm after he was jumped on by his colleagues and felt his arm ‘pop’, but the exercise was allowed to continue despite him asking for it to stop.
It was exacerbated when he was kicked in the same arm.
As a result, Mr Brosnan was medically discharged from the army, and required several operations, extensive physiotherapy, and to this day still suffers from the injury.
But he received the compensation after receiving help from personal injury law fir
m Irwin Mitchell, and its solicitor Matthew Garson said: “We are delighted with the outcome of the case but disappointed it had to go to court before liability was accepted by the Ministry of Defence.
“The level of compensation reflects the fact that Mr Brosnan’s livelihood has been affected by this injury.
“It was a particularly bad dislocation to his dominant right shoulder – he was discharged as a result and his choice of future employment has been narrowed.
“Mr Brosnan was taking part in a routine training exercise but was given no protective clothing and only minimal and inappropriate protective equipment, while the exercise was allowed to continue even after he was injured.
“All employers – especially those in high-risk areas such as the forces, should provide the correct equipment and follow exemplary safety procedures, even if it is only part of a training exercise.”
IT’S no wonder that the game of rugby suffered a sharp intake of breath when the judgment in the Aurelien Rougerie v Phil Greening case was handed down by a French civil court on Thursday. Greening, the former Wasps hooker, was found guilty of causing injury to Rougerie’s throat during a club match in August 2002. The French wing was hospitalised for 12 weeks, was forced to eat through a straw, underwent three operations on his windpipe and missed out on some big games for his club, Montferrand (now Clermont Auvergne) and also for France.
The international wing sued Greening for loss of earnings and personal injuries. Rougerie was looking for a euro equivalent of around £65,000 in damages but was awarded just under £29,000. In many ways, the money is incidental, however. It’s the precedent that was the talk of rugby.
How can an incident that was deemed a legitimate play by the match officials, who did not give a foul, not to mind issue a yellow card, be interpreted otherwise by a civil court? And now that one case has been successfully brought to court by a French player will there be others? Next time there is a bad injury in France (say, in the Heineken Cup or the Six Nations) and a player from these islands is implicated, will we be heading for the bar (as in legal) as opposed to the bar (as in lager) to sort it all out?
As Wasps’ coach, Shaun Edwards, said on Friday: “It worries me. We live in a blame culture where ambulance chasing makes a lot of people a good living.” We’ll get around to all that in a minute. But first, to the day in question. Montferrand were hosting Wasps in Clermont-Ferrand. The game was in the first minute when Greening took the ball up and attempted to get rid of a tackler (Rougerie) by handing him off.
Play went on. No punishment was administered by the referee. The first Greening knew about the controversy was long after the final whistle when he was informed that Rougerie was in a bad way and that his hand-off (Montferrand said he used his elbow not his hand) was the cause.
That much was in dispute right from the off but what was self-evident was that Rougerie was in huge discomfort, however it happened. He spent three months in hospital and had three operations on his larynx. The wheels of justice started to turn. A personal damages claim was filed against Greening. Rougerie’s people laid it on the line. “There is a price for the pain, a price for the scar on Aurelien’s neck and a price for lost earnings,” said Jean-Paul Brousse, his lawyer.
“I have looked at the tape many times,” Greening responded, “and I am satisfied that I did nothing wrong. So is the club. It’s quite scary that these things can happen. You don’t know where it’s going to lead.”
Eventually it was to lead to a civil court and a verdict given against Greening. There has been much talk of precedents ever since. Damian Hopley, the chief executive of the Professional Rugby Players’ Association said: “This is very shocking for the game. It sets a very dangerous precedent in a full contact sport. Because of that there is bound to be widespread concern at this ruling. Having seen the incident, it was a very straightforward case of a hand-off.”
Tony Copsey, chief executive of Greening’s old club Wasps, echoed Copley’s concerns. “We do not know the full implications for the sport but this would appear to set a dangerous precedent.”
It’s worth pointing out that, in all probability, a British court would not have come to a similar decision as their French counterparts. I don’t claim to know the ins and outs of French law but hereabouts it is plain enough. If a player wants to do a Rougerie and sue another player for this kind of incident he has two options. He can claim assault or he can go for negligence.
To stand up a charge of assault you must prove intent. That’s not an easy road to go down. Negligence is the alternative. To be successful you must show that the Greening figure didn’t take reasonable care in the incident. Deciding on what is reasonable is the legal equivalent of arguing about the length of a piece of string.
Rugby players are deemed to accept a degree of risk of injury every time they run on to the field. That is the nature of the sport. In Britain, if a player doesn’t commit an act of foul play in the eyes of the referee then the chances of him being found guilty in one of our courts would be slim.
In France, that is not the case, not after this ruling.
Now all of this may prove to be a one-off. There may not be another Rougerie out there. But the possibility of a repeat has got people talking. For example, take Nathan Hines or Simon Taylor, both making their living with top French teams, both expected to push the laws of the game to the absolute limit in their weekly battles with big, bruising packs in the First Division.
Players get injured all the time. What about a hypothetical scenario that sees Hines or Taylor involved in a hefty tackle that puts an opponent in hospital. If the tackle isn’t totally legit he is now vulnerable to a damages claim. If it’s on the high side or a little late, he could be in serious trouble, depending on what kind of customer he’s dealing with.
The scrum is even trickier. A scrum goes down and a front-row forward damages his neck and is forced out of the game because of some borderline offence by an opposing prop. How are we fixed in that scenario? What’s the compensation for a career-ending injury? Six figures and up, no question.
The French-based Scots have to live with this every week, the rest will only encounter this potential legal minefield on the few occasions a year they play in France. Rougerie’s brilliance on the wing has often inspired awe but last week he found another way to drop our jaws. Meanwhile, rugby is still thinking this one through, hoping against hope that when Rougerie became the first player to win an award like this, he also became the last.
Sorry, Gordon, nothing to brag about in this tournament
TRULY these are desperate times for our Prime Minister. Gordon Brown dithered on the calling of an election, was accused of plagiarism on inheritance tax, was embarrassed by the Northern Rock fiasco and is currently looking like a drowning man on the saga of the lost child benefits discs.
And now he’s on to another loser with his support for the return of the Home Internationals.
These championships were given a decent burial many years ago and nothing can put flesh on the bones at this stage. All these campaigns calling for an exhumation ignore the fact that the one fixture of any appeal, Scotland v England, has relevance these days only when there’s a prize at stake, like qualification for a major championship.
Anything else is just faking it. Somebody mentioned bragging rights last week. Frankly, that’s what worries me. Bragging about beating England in a puffed-up friendly while Europe’s elite are in Austria and Switzerland playing for real? Quite honestly, it would be pitiful.
