The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, commonly known as the CICA is a taxpayer-funded scheme, which was set up in 1964 to compensate blameless victims of violent crime. For the first time the State was taking responsibility for violent crime committed by law breakers and by 1998 the scheme was receiving over 40,000 applications and paying out £50,000,000 annually.

How things have changed but with the economic climate the way it is, something had to.

Earlier this week Justice Secretary Ken Clarke told MPs that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was now in “serious financial difficulty” with a deficit of over £250 million.

As it stands there are 25 compensation bands, starting at £1,000 for minor sprains and fractures. At the top end victims are able to receive up to £250,000 if they suffer paralysis or very serious brain damage. Under new proposals the lowest five bands are to be scrapped so that anyone with a minor head injury or broken hand for example will be excluded. For other bands, awards will be significantly cut.

Mr Clarke has also proposed scrapping injury compensation for anyone with a criminal record. That said, criminal records have always been taken into account when decisions are made over whether victims are awarded compensation. Over the past 10 years approximately 20,000 criminals have been paid more than £75 million, including a convicted rapist who was given £62,000. The Soham murderer, Ian Huntley recently claimed compensation for being violently attacked in prison, which provoked outrage among the public that this monster may have received up to £20,000 from the public purse.

There have been conflicting views about whether these proposals would be for the greater good, both in the Houses of Parliament and amongst the general public. In view of the economy being in such dire straits it would seem a good idea. One school of thought would disagree however, adamant that blameless victims of violent crime should be compensated. Nevertheless, should the UK’s slim line bank balance be spent in this way and should the concept of compensation be attached to crime?