Comment: Common sense from the law over criminal injuries

Nov 13 2009 by William Leece, Liverpool Daily Post

SOMETIMES, the law is an ass. Other times it can show some common sense. This week the law, refreshingly, displayed its sensible side.

The case of Jay Jones, assaulted when he was three by another three-year-old, must be every parent’s nightmare.

An older child or adult who inflicted the injuries that put Jay in hospital for two nights, and caused problems that went on for a lot longer, would have been in court in the twinkling of an eye on an assault charge.

We are not suggesting for one moment that jay’s attacker should be prosecuted, or indeed that he knew at that age the import of what he was doing.

But in declaring that because the attacker was well below any age of criminal responsibility, and therefore that no criminal act took place, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has managed to lose sight of the basics.

It has taken a legal action through a firm of Wirral solicitors to establish that Jay can be compensated under the CICA scheme. A non-lawyer may well be surprised that Jay’s family have needed to go to such lengths, but if the precedent set this week makes it easier for others in similar positions to claim compensation, then it will have been money well spent.

Certainly the principle should be established that a criminal attack is a criminal attack, regardless of whether or not the perpetrator can be deemed criminally liable.

We would hope that the CICA will take the hint and not put up such a rearguard action the next time such a case arises.

If they do, then perhaps a change in the law may be required to spell out with any doubts whatsoever the circumstances in which the CICA should pay up. We certainly do not want to see a repetition of this case.