APPENDIX 3
Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Compensation Agency
Thank you for your letter of 26 January 2004
outlining the further information that the Committee requires,
following its hearing on 21 January.
For your convenience, I have structured my reply
in a question and answer format:
Q: How many claims under the Criminal
Damage Compensation Scheme are outstanding awaiting the Chief
Constable's certificate (CCC)?
A: The Agency currently has 1,599 undecided
claims under the Criminal Damage Scheme. Of these, 902 have been
identified as requesting a CCC. At present 57 claims are held
where a decision as to the issue/refusal of a CCC has not yet
been received by the Agency.
Q: The Scheme provides that someone
with a terrorist conviction is excluded from compensation. How
many cases have been turned down where there are multiple applicants
and only one of the applicants has a terrorist conviction?
A: Of those claims where compensation was
not paid due to the provisions of Article 10(3) of the Criminal
Damage scheme, nine were made by multiple applicants. Unfortunately,
the Agency does not hold a computerised record of which applicant(s)
was affected by Article 10(3). These nine claims stretch back
many years and the Agency has initiated a search of its paper
records for each such claim to try to provide a definitive answer.
I will write again once this search has been completed. However
some of the records may have been destroyed over the years.
Q: The use of the Agency's power to
recover compensation from offenders was raised and the Minister
agreed to provide a more detailed note on the statistic in the
Annual Report that compensation was not being pursued in more
than 1,100 cases where offenders have been identified.
A: As noted in the Agency's Annual Report
for 2002-03, there were 1,129 claims settled during the year where
an offender was identified but no recovery was sought from that
offender. Over the past five years the Agency has recovered almost
£3.0 million from 1,150 offenders.
The Agency's policy in relation to the exercise
of its power to recover from an offender is longstanding and predates
the creation of the current Agency. Following a review in 1991,
it was accepted by the then Minister that the focus of the recovery
powers should be on those cases where offenders themselves become
entitled to compensation from public funds at a later date. It
was also accepted that attempts to recover compensation directly
from the earnings or assets of offenders should not continue and
that no attempt should be made to recover in any outstanding cases.
The rationale was that it was relatively easy
to recover compensation when the offender him/herself was due
to receive compensation from the public purse, but considerably
more difficult when attempting to recover directly from the offender's
earnings/assets. The legislation requires the courts (before making
a recovery order), to "have regard to the financial position
of the offender, his employment, the possibilities of his future
employment, his liabilities to his family and other such matters
as the court considers relevant".
In practice, the courts did not make formal
recovery orders unless the offender was in regular employment,
or had readily available assets. In order to make such an application,
evidence had to be gathered by the NIO, as to the offender's financial
status. Reliable information was difficult to obtain and enforcement
frequently ineffective. In all the circumstances a decision was
taken to limit recovery proceedings to recovery from an offender's
compensation.
Since that time, the policy has been revisited
on a number of occasions. However, the original arguments still
apply and indeed are strengthened by the intervening powers of
the court to award compensation to a victim from the offender
as part of the original criminal action. Equity demands that the
Agency treats all offenders equally.
4 March 2004
| 
