|
Woman is awarded less when Compensation
Appeals Panel decides that since she is "mentally defective" the usual
damages don't apply Ms Z, a young woman, had been raped on several occasions by a much older neighbour. The man pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental defective" (a much less serious charge). He got an 18-month suspended sentence. Criminal injuries compensation had been refused on the grounds that Ms Z was "not a victim of violence" because since she was unable to give consent, she was alleged to have consented. We told the solicitor who helped with the appeal that we were concerned about discrimination because Ms Z was categorised as unable to give or refuse her consent, and that we might be able to help address this. He told us that consent would be dealt with, and did not want our help. Mr Z did not insist that he wanted WAR involved, as he did not want to offend the solicitor and he assumed the barrister would do a reasonable job. Mr and Mrs Z wanted their daughter to get £25,000 compensation. They met their barrister for the first time just before the appeal hearing. He disagreed with the amount of money they wanted, because it was going to be very difficult to prove violence. In the hearing, a policeman confirmed there was violence in one of the incidents. (Although his testimony helped, it also showed that where there is only an "unlawful sexual intercourse" conviction, the woman or girl is not recognised as the victim of a crime.) A psychologist confirmed post traumatic stress disorder. Mrs Z in her daughter’s absence was interviewed for five minutes. The Panel of three older men was so abrupt that she could not talk. Ms Z was awarded £12,500. The barrister told her parents that he would have asked for £20,000 but the Chairman was so abrupt he didn’t want to push it, and anyway their daughter had got a learning disability. He said that there was no loss of earnings and that they came to a £12,500 award because they had nothing to base it on. In other words, because she was unwaged and had a learning disability, none of the usual questions to assess damages applied: emotional distress, effect on relationships and daily life, or the additional care support and advocacy which she now needed from her family and others. |