Victims of national scandals are further harmed by compensation system

Researchers at King’s College London say victims of state scandals are disappointed and dissatisfied with the current compensation system, which is “exacerbating the harm they have already suffered”.

They are calling for the creation of new public institutions to ensure fair and independent outcomes for victims, and mandatory guidance on the setting up and operation of redress systems. This includes ensuring that those who cause harm are not left in control of compensation systems, and that all systems take a more collaborative and victim-centred approach.

The new report, which was shared with the Home Secretary and other ministers, builds on insights shared at a recent roundtable discussion involving victim advocates, lawyers and academics. It also builds on recent research into Windrush, the Post Office, Lambeth Children’s Home and the Infected Blood Scandal, which has exposed weaknesses and structural flaws in all existing schemes that require urgent reform.

Victims’ voices are currently not being heard, said Shaila Pal, director and supervising attorney at the King’s Law Clinic, which conducted that investigation and led the roundtable held at King’s in June.

“These people have been failed by the state, and it is unacceptable to compound the harm already caused by the systems designed to compensate them. Their experiences are often marginalized and the systems lack coherence. The whole process is traumatic, and many have told us that they feel that the compensation they have been offered is inadequate and that they are unjustified.”

“We need a system that is fair, supportive and responsive, and fully and adequately compensates people for the serious harm they have suffered,” said Shaila Pal, director and supervising attorney at King’s Legal Clinic.

“Thanks to the great work of Sir Robert Francis KC and Sir Brian Langstaff, fair compensation for the victims of the infected blood scandal is on the horizon. It has taken far too long and my heart goes out to all of them.”Other campaigns that continue to fight to recognize their loss and suffering will also ease the further burden placed on victims with compensation obligations. We hope these recommendations will be seriously considered,” says Factor 8 Director and Founder Jason Evans, who lost his father. Due to the blood scandal of an infected person when he was 4 years old.

A new King’s report finds there is no central coordinated approach for governments to create new compensation schemes, resulting in a relatively slow and ad hoc approach. The report reflects the findings of the National Board of Audit in July. It also follows the All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Fair Business Banking which identified systemic problems in the management and regulation of the relief system.

New King’s Legal Clinic report highlights how victims are not at the center of the mission at the planning stage, and each plan invents itself from scratch rather than learning from previous plans. I’m doing it. The newly established Infected Blood Compensation Scheme seeks to learn from the mistakes of previous schemes and could serve as a blueprint for future relief schemes.

Roundtable participants had varying opinions on how losses should be calculated, but many felt that non-monetary relief was just as important as monetary compensation. They also wanted an apology that was timely, meaningful, personal and “more than a lawyer can describe.”

They shared their anger at the application process, saying they felt the amount of evidence expected of victims was excessive and that the scheme was adversarial in its approach. They agreed that accessible, funded and high-quality legal advice and support for victims is essential to any redress plan. In this context, the participants in the Windrush case argued that the lack of legal advice provided by the funding had a significant negative impact on victims, which is the subject of an ongoing legal challenge by Southwark Law Center. emphasized.

The report recommends the establishment of a new public standards body to act as a compensation body to enable fair and independent outcomes.

It also recommends new mandatory guidance on the setting up and operation of redress schemes, including ensuring that:

It is set without delay It takes a collaborative, victim-centred approach It is managed by an independent entity separate from the original perpetrator It frames compensation broadly to reflect the harm suffered. provided in a fair, effective, timely, transparent and proportionate manner.