Criminal claims
The family of burglar Fred Barras, killed when he and two others tried to burgle
the house of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, claimed money from the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board. How can a burglar, or his family, be allowed
benefit from his misdeeds?
If I
read the newspapers correctly, the family's argument is that were he still
alive, Barras would be contributing to the family budget, and, in the words of
his grandmother "would not have been a thief forever".
By his
actions, Mr Martin denied the youth the opportunity of putting his past behind
him and becoming an upstanding citizen.
The criminal injuries bit should not cause any real problems. The Board has
consistently declined to pay out to people with criminal records, even when
their injuries in a particular case have not come from their criminal doings. It
is doubtful that the Board will be inclined to give a handout to the family of
someone with a long record, who was injured whilst committing a criminal act.
However, suing Mr Martin is a wholly different ball game. The courts have got
into the habit of awarding compensation to criminals whose victims have
over-reacted, and taken reprisals against them when they have found them on
their land, damaging or removing their property.
Now that legal aid has gone
from personal injury actions, it will be up to Barras' family to find a
solicitor who will take the case on a contingency fee basis. The difficulty with
this is that it is a great deal cheaper for a defendant to pay a few hundred -
or indeed a few thousand pounds, than fight a civil action. It is an economic
fact of life. Whether it is morally right is not the same thing.
Prisoners sue the Home Office for lost shoes, shrunken shirts, hard beds, poor
food and myriads of other real or imagined slights. In such cases there is the
real smell of blackmail.
The
cost and risk of transporting prisoners or setting up a local court inside the
prison all mean that there is no possible way of recouping costs from
unsuccessful actions.
It is
far easier for the Home Office to pay up, and save time, more money and further
trouble. On balance, it is probably better that the prisoners be allowed to
continue with their claims. It might be even better if they were obliged to pay
a percentage of their winnings to either their victims, or to a charity they
nominate.
