NCJ Number
82167
Journal
Anglo-American Law Review Volume: 6 Dated: (January-March 1977) Pages: 34-53
Date Published
1977
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This paper discusses problems encountered by Great Britain's Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the courts during the Board's first 10 years of operations, 1964-74, including what injuries are compensable, delays in reporting to the police, exclusions, basis of compensation, and recovery of money paid.
Abstract
In this 10-year period, the number of applications received by the Board expressed as a percentage of violent crimes committed has risen steadily from 8 percent to 17 percent. The British scheme functions on a nonstatutory basis and is funded by a Home Office grant. Because the Board was concerned with the original plan's broad language stating that compensation would be available when an injury was directly attributable to a criminal offense, 1964 amendments substituted crimes of violence for this phrase. The Board also set guidelines when dealing with awkward cases of causation and received help from the courts in interpreting 'attributable to.' Tort principles have guided these decisions, as exemplified by the Board's interpreting personal injury to include claims for nervous shock. The Board also faced difficulties in dealing with applications from people in situations where prosecution of the offense would have failed because the assailant was a minor or mentally ill. The Home Secretary concluded that such defenses should not prejudice an application. The Board now has the discretion to waive the requirement that an offense be reported without delay to the police. The British plan excludes applicants who are members of the same family or who were injured as a result of traffic violations. Despite many criticisms, these provisions have not been revised. The Board is now able to exercise discretionto reduce or reject compensation if it feels the injury was caused in some way by the applicant's character, conduct, or lifestyle. Solutions to problems concerning the basis for compensation have relied on general tort principles. Awards are made for pain and suffering, loss of future amenities, shortened life expectancy, loss of wages, and out-of-pocket expenses. Compensation is reduced by the value of any social security benefits paid to the injured person. The court can order convicted persons to pay compensation to victims, and in this way the Board has recovered nearly one-third of the monies it has paid out. The article contains 60 footnotes.