The financial plight of victims of the London bombings has led to calls for fairer compensation. Jeff Zindani says a major review is the answer.

The first anniversary of the London bombings has brought into sharp focus the glaring deficiencies in the government's Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. A scheme that was introduced in 1964, and quickly became the envy of most civilised countries, has now been subverted into what one victim of 7/7 described as an 'Argos catalogue' type of system for awarding compensation.


The original scheme was based on civil compensatory principles, which attempted to put the victims in the position they would have been had they not been injured. Practitioners knew full well that this was rarely ever achieved because of the robustness of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's members. Nonetheless, each case would be determined on its own merits, with the victims' needs being critical, so that if round-the-clock nursing care were required, enough money would be awarded for this to be possible, rather than leaving it to the vagaries of the NHS.


The London victims have had to deal with the unjust consequences of a tariff system, with awards based on injuries that are classified as 'minor', 'significant' and 'permanent'. In the most serious cases, they are facing capped awards of £500,000, which represent about 10% of what a road traffic victim with similar injuries would recover. If the victim has private insurance or has received payments, these can also be taken into account, leaving very little, if anything, from the state.


The scheme does not allow for any legal costs to be payable and, while many legal advisers are undertaking this work on a pro bono basis, surely it cannot be right that individuals of criminal assaults are responsible for payment of their costs from their own awards.


The government, recognising the political damage, has introduced various measures for dealing with these cases by fast-tracking decisions and setting aside an additional £2.5 million in compensation. Even the new Home Secretary, John Reid, has accepted that the scheme has created 'incongruity and an apparent unfairness'.


At the same time, and without much attention from the press, a recent consultation paper from the Home Office proposes reform of the scheme by shifting responsibility from the state to employers. The underlying, or justifying, philosophy is summed up by the contention that the scheme in its current form could be seen to act as a disincentive for employers to make the workplace safe and do everything reasonably possible to protect employees.


The proposals suggest that where an employee suffers injury as a consequence of violent crime at work, whether or not reasonable steps have been taken, the employer will be required to compensate that employee. Emergency service workers could simply be removed as eligible applicants from any new scheme.


By pushing ahead with this, the government may simply be making the same mistakes as its predecessors, by opting for financial savings instead of properly compensating victims. What is required is a root-and-branch review of this area of the law, looking at the responsibilities of the state and other agencies for compensating victims of crime. Is it not time for a Royal Commission? This has to be better than ad hoc, financially driven reform. Victims of all criminal assaults, no matter the circumstances, deserve more than this.


Jeff Zindani is a solicitor and managing director of Solihull-based Forum Law