header-logo header-logo

Gauke pledges support for crime victims

12 September 2018
Issue: 7808 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Lord Chancellor promises review of a system no longer ‘fit for purpose’

The government has announced an overhaul of its support for victims of crime, including a major review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme (CICS) and greater support for bereaved families.

Publishing the cross-departmental Victims Strategy paper this week, Justice Secretary David Gauke said it set out ‘the support victims should receive at every stage of their journey through the justice system’. The government will launch a consultation on the plans early next year.

A review of the CICS will begin immediately, considering reform of the time limits for applying and abolition of the ‘unfair and arbitrary’ pre-1979 ‘same roof rule’ under which victims cannot claim if they lived with the perpetrator.

Katie Russell, spokesperson at Rape Crisis England & Wales, said the review was ‘long overdue’ as ‘the current scheme is not fit for purpose and discriminates in particular against victims and survivors of sexual offences’.

Russell said it was encouraging that the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse would be taken into account. She highlighted other issues including the failure to recognise that under-16s cannot consent to their own abuse through the distinction drawn between consent in law and ‘in fact’, the two-year time limit, and the disqualification of victims and survivors with criminal convictions.

Gauke pledged to toughen up enforcement of the Victim’s Code, which sets out the minimum level of service that victims should receive from the justice system, and to introduce victim-friendly waiting areas in court and improve accessibility for the most vulnerable. Local authorities will be supported so that ‘no victim is turned away’ from a refuge.

Court time in the magistrates’ court would be freed up by dealing with crimes with no identifiable victims, such as fare-dodging, outside of court hearings. Vulnerable victims would continue to be able to give evidence through video link.

The government also launched a consultation this week on ‘Establishing an independent public advocate’, who would act for bereaved families after a public disaster such as Hillsborough and support them with any subsequent inquests and inquiries. The consultation ends on 3 December 2018.

Issue: 7808 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll