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!
She had been advised by police to collect evidence of her husband's constant abuse and violence, and one night when he came home drunk and demanding she managed to press the 'start' button on her son's toy tape recorder. The police considered the evidence very strong indeed, and she went to court for a rape trial, but was persuaded to accept a plea-bargain for the sake of her young son. The conviction, and the later offer of compensation, were for 'indecent assault' -- only £3,000, less than half the award she'd have got for rape. With WAR's help she appealed for it to be recognised as rape, and increased her award to £7,750 . Now we want to know why she had to go through all the pain and work of an appeal. Compensation is supposed to depend on what the woman suffers, not on what happens in court, but rape survivors seem to be routinely turned down if there hasn't been a criminal conviction. We are asking the Authority to explain their policy. If this woman didn't have sufficient evidence, what do they require? A video?
