header-logo header-logo

11 August 2021
Issue: 7945 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Judge orders rethink of blanket exclusion

The High Court has ordered the government to consult on its ‘unspent conviction rule’ for criminal injuries compensation

Under the rule, introduced in 2012, victims of crime are automatically excluded from compensation if they have an unspent conviction at the time of their application. Prior to 2012, there was discretion to consider exceptional circumstances.

Critics of the rule pointed out it disproportionately affected victims of child sex abuse and, in 2018, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) recommended the rule be changed. In response, the government set out its Victims Strategy, which included consulting on the IICSA recommendations.

The Ministry of Justice, however, later refused to consult and said an internal review had been conducted and the rule would not be changed.

Kim Mitchell, a survivor of a sexual assault by a school teacher when she was eight years old, brought a judicial review. She was refused compensation for the harm she suffered because of a minor Public Order Act offence she committed nearly 30 years later.

She argued she had a ‘legitimate expectation, based on clear and unambiguous representations’ made in the Victims Strategy that they would consult on the rule.

Ruling in R (oao Mitchell) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] EWHC 2248 (Admin), Mrs Justice Lang agreed the Justice Secretary’s decision not to consult on the issue was a breach of his promise and ordered he conduct a public consultation.

Lang J said a legal obligation may arise from a legitimate expectation of consultation, and a legitimate expectation may arise from an express promise or representation made by a public body.

Mitchell’s solicitor at the Centre for Women’s Justice, Debaleena Dasgupta, said: ‘Too often the government makes public statements which imply they will address concerns, but then take decisions behind closed doors which don’t.’

Issue: 7945 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll