The Flaws of the CICA

Home » News & Knowledge » The Flaws of the CICA

The Flaws of the CICA (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) – Why the Review is Sorely Needed

£244,000 in compensation has been withheld from 103 victims of rape and sexual assault in the past two years by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). [i] In the past five years, 253 victims had payments cut due to their previous convictions.

A provision in the Scheme that the CICA works from allows it to reduce or withhold an award which would be otherwise made, in the instance that the victim has unspent previous convictions. The severity of the previous conviction determines the amount that the CICA will subtract from an award.

Flaws of the CICA

Why Does the CICA Have This Provision?

The CICA’s reasoning behind this is to prevent those who have previously harmed others from being compensated as much as those who have not. They view this as being the fairest approach. This creates an issue however, especially when this involves victims of rape and sexual assault.

Examples given in a recent article by The Mirror include a reduction of £2,700 from someone who had breached the Regulation of Railways Act, £4,400 from someone who had a conviction for allowing their dog to be out of control in a public place and several victims who had drug-related convictions with penalties reaching £4,400.

It becomes grossly inappropriate when it is considered that some victims of sexual offences have been coerced into the offences they have committed, especially as children. They are then groomed by their abusers to be silent about the reasons they have done so. Drug-related convictions also generate a level of unfairness as many survivors of sexual assault can turn to alcohol and drugs as coping strategies.

What Challenges Has the CICA Faced?

One such victim who was denied compensation from the CICA that they would otherwise have been entitled to due to a previous conviction was Kim Mitchell. She was sexually abused by her PE teacher, Norman Hogbin, when she was just eight years old. In the following 26 years, Ms. Mitchell attempted to report the crime to the police numerous times, it wasn’t until 2016 that she was believed. Hogbin was eventually sentenced to three years in prison.

Ms. Mitchell sustained serious psychological injuries including PTSD and suicidal tendencies. She attempted to claim through the CICA for these injuries however she was informed that she was not entitled to compensation. This was due to her receiving a community order after threatening a former employer for withholding wages from her. Ms. Mitchell was quoted as saying: “I feel like I’m being kicked while I’m already down. I didn’t commit a crime when I was eight.”[ii]

Ms. Mitchell is mounting an appeal against the CICA’s decision, but she is not the first to highlight one of the many flaws of the way they choose to operate. In 2018, following the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal, the CICA were found to be refusing compensation to the victims of child sex abuse on the basis that they ‘consented’ to it. They would go on to issue an apology and change their guidelines.[iii]

Justice Brass Statuette

Earlier this year, in July 2019, the so-called ‘same roof’ rule was found to be unlawful and incompatible with human rights laws by the Court of Appeal.[iv] The ‘same roof’ rule stated that any victims that lived in the same home as their attacker before 1979 were not entitled to damages.

The ruling by the Court of Appeal became a landmark case. It had been brought by a woman known as JT who had been denied compensation for sexual abuse against her stepfather by the CICA. While they did not go on to issue any apology this time, they would, again, go on to change their guidelines.[v]

What Other Legal Challenges Have Been Presented?

Due to how the CICA’s Scheme operates, more challenges have arisen and more will continue to be raised. Michelle McPhillips was denied compensation after watching her son die following a stabbing in February 2017. She was told by the CICA that she was not entitled to any compensation because she ‘did not witness the immediate aftermath’, this was despite her arriving at the scene within almost a minute of her son collapsing.

She has appealed their decision and, with the help of a solicitor, has obtained the CCTV footage from the aftermath of the murder of her son in order to prove to the CICA that she had arrived almost immediately. She said, “I had to employ a solicitor because they make it so complicated… [the Scheme is] not really fair.”[vi]

Earlier this year, the CICA were challenged by Helen Newlove, the victims’ commissioner. After she had reviewed the CICA Scheme, she found victims were left feeling alienated by the process and found it so stressful that it could re-trigger their trauma. “The process of claiming is often having a detrimental impact on their wellbeing. I worry that we are treating it as a tick-box exercise, without recognising the emotional needs of those making claims.”[vii]

What Will the Review Focus On?

In September 2018, government announced that they would be undergoing a full review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to ‘ensure more victims get the right compensation’. As part of this ongoing review, the following issues will be addressed:

Crime of violence – The suggestion was that the definition of what constitutes a crime of violence in the scheme should be broadened to include sexually exploitative behaviour (e.g. grooming).
Terrorism – Following the more recent terrorist attacks and the life-changing injuries victims sustained as a result, questions arose regarding the suitability of the scheme in providing support to victims of terrorism
Time limits – The current time limits require an applicant over 18 to make a claim no later than 2 years following the date of the incident. Victims of child sex abuse are more likely to delay reporting their crimes and applications for compensation, therefore, as it currently stands, they will miss out on compensation
Unspent convictions – As I have explained above, currently, the CICA will automatically reject an application if the applicant has an unspent conviction which results in a sentence that is above a certain severity. This can unfairly impact individuals who have obtained their severe convictions as a response to being abused, groomed or exploited[viii]

In November 2018, I wrote an article [ix] regarding the progress that the CICA has made following the announcement of their main priorities between 2014 and 2017. I ended that with the hope that 2019 was set to be a potentially defining year for the CICA.

While the year is not yet at an end, we are now a year on from the review announcement and, as each day passes, more and more people are missing out on compensation they should be entitled to. With an influx of people coming forward regarding their grievances with how they operate their Scheme, it seems we are entering crunch time for the CICA.