Winning compensation

Ex drug user wins compensation for rape -
 

I came across the WAR website by chance after failing to obtain justice through the Courts and compensation. I found myself fighting for a criminal injuries award I knew would help me rebuild my shattered life. The psychological effects of my unresolved rape case were devastating and spread outwards affecting every aspect of my life. I became reclusive, unable to trust anyone, let alone have relationships. I suffered at work without realising the real cause.

When I won compensation for the rape I suffered I felt 10 tons lighter. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to help. I can’t bear witnessing the injustice out there without at least trying to make a difference.

After my rapist was acquitted, I became reclusive, unable to trust anyone, let alone have relationships. I contacted WAR and I became filled with trust after the first 'phone call. I was allocated a delightful lady for support, who had suffered as I had. She won compensation and she helped me win as well. I could not have achieved this on my own as I was given first class guidance and advice and first class support. She even accompanied me to the appeal hearing. Their combined strength; their belief in me and my case, helped me win £11,000, overturning a decision made 6 years before. WAR helped me back on my feet and helped in my healing as well. Many thanks and Godbless you all for fighting for justice in an unjust world.

In 1995 two women won the first private prosecution for rape, assisted by the English Collective of Prostitutes, Legal Action for Women and WAR. They were raped by the same client on different occasions. He got 14 years in prison, reduced to 11 on appeal. In court the defence accused them of inventing the rape in order to claim compensation (a common tactic, sometimes thrown even at women who never apply for compensation). They had intitially been refused compensation for delay in reporting and non-cooperation with the police, but when the man was convicted, the CICA heard an appeal. They went before a Panel of three male QCs, represented by WAR. Although the Panel had already decided to grant an award they commented that there was a question as to whether prostitutes were entitled to the same amount as other women.

Ms G was raped and robbed in 1994 while working as a prostitute. She reported it despite the fact that she had convictions related to prostitution and the rapist was sentenced to four years for rape and four years for robbery to run concurrently. In 1995 the CICB turned down an application for compensation in spite of recognising that her convictions "have nothing whatsoever to do with the incident which gives rise to the application" and that "notwithstanding her way of life, she is entitled to say no and no one is entitled to assault her as she was assaulted on this occasion". Her lawyer organised legal aid to cover WAR’s report for the CICA. Ms G organised a housing association worker as a witness. Her story was featured in The Guardian.

In 1996 Ms P was working as a prostitute when she was repeatedly raped, assaulted and robbed by a client. She reported this to the police immediately. Her attacker was convicted. The CICA refused compensation because "in this case, it is considered that evidence of your unlawful conduct makes it inappropriate that you should receive any award from public funds".

A London woman was initially denied compensation for rape by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.  They said there was not enough evidence -- even though she had a recording of what had happened!  

Mrs Y was raped whilst sleeping having drunk substantial amounts of alcohol. The accused – a friend of a friend - was acquitted in court. Compensation was initially refused on the grounds that "no crime of violence" had taken place. The compensation Board wrote that "the reactions of Mrs Y were not, as she acknowledges,  demonstrably unwelcoming for some time, albeit measured in minutes. She had given him "no signal of absence of consent" (until she woke up fully and threw him off the bed). WAR wrote to the CICA and represented her at appeal, arguing that it goes against the principle of rape law that the absence of a "signal" meant he could take advantage of her while she was asleep.

In 1992 Ms Q climbed through a window to escape two male acquaintances who after drinking alcohol together had locked her in a room and threatened her with rape. She lost her balance and fell three stories to the ground below. She suffered a broken back, smashed heel, leg injuries, and was unable to care for herself. The police had taken a statement from her within days of the injury, in her hospital bed when she was just out of intensive care and still heavily sedated. She had been unable to report to the male police officer that she had fallen while trying to get away from imminent rape, and that she had a history of child abuse which made her panic before she fell. The men were never prosecuted.

In 1994 her application for compensation was refused after the CICB ruled there had been "no crime of violence". Ms Q appealed, submitting WAR’s expert report.

On 12 March 1996 a women who was violently attacked, raped and robbed won £4,000 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB). The CICB had initially refused her compensation because she had convictions related to prostitution. The rapist was imprisoned but the CICB turned down her compensation in spite of recognizing that her convictions “have nothing whatsoever to do with the incident”. In using its discretionary powers to deny or reduce compensation in this way, the CICB is increasingly out of step with public opinion. Paragraph 6(c) on Character and Conduct must to be dropped from the CICB guidelines. Compensation should not be based on evidence about the victim’s occupation or “way of life”, sex, race, class, disability, immigration or other legal status, age, sexual preference, etc.