Victims of crime are being underpaid by tens of thousands of pounds if they do not challenge decisions made by a government compensation scheme.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) pays compensation to victims of violent crime, who have been left physically or mentally harmed, through its Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS).
APIL has scrutinised cases where victims appealed the initial offer of compensation from the CICA. Our analysis shows that when cases went to an appeal that offers rose on average by seven times.
The latest figures show that in cases which went to appeal in 2024/25, an average of £7,710 was initially offered, but at appeal the average offer rose to considerably to £55,800.
It’s nothing short of scandalous how much some victims are initially offered, compared with how much they go on to receive if they appeal.
The data period we analysed is not an anomaly. Our members have reported cases from previous years where victims who were offered low, seemingly arbitrary compensation initially, had them increased substantially following an appeal.
In one case a young girl left with brain damage and wheelchair-bound after being attacked by her father was offered a derisory £3,300 compensation for her life-changing injuries. Her compensation was eventually increased 152-fold to the maximum payment of £500,000.
In another case, a baby boy left with devastating brain damage after being violently shaken by his father, was offered just £82,000. At appeal this was increased to £500,000.
Another victim left with significant mental health issues and unable to work after being attacked at home by five armed men was offered £9,000. This increased to £300,000 at the appeal settlement.
A sexual abuse survivor suffered significant mental health issues due to the trauma, which meant they had hardly worked since leaving school more than 30 years ago. They were initially offered £11,300, but at appeal this was upped to £164,000.
Another case settled at appeal for £500,000. It involved a very young child left with multiple disabilities after being assaulted by a parent. The initial offer from the CICA was £23,000.
For the compensation scheme to do what it is meant to and help to support injured victims of crime, it needs to make meaningful offers of redress in the first place, not force vulnerable people into fighting their cases in an appeal process.
These are initially derisory offers. The CICA should be fair the first time around. To do otherwise is creating needless worry and stress for people already going through the worst of times.
Some victims will have had their lives changed forever in truly horrifying events. A compassionate society would care what happens to these people. But we have a situation where injured victims of crime must jump through hoops to get the compensation to which they are entitled.
Many unrepresented people who are dealing with the trauma of being injured will not have the skills or confidence to challenge an offer and will miss out on vital compensation to help them get their lives back on track.
Victims of crime should not have do battle at appeals. They should be made fair offers in the first place.
The situation is especially troublesome considering that the CICS does not require a victim to have legal representation. Those who do not have a lawyer may not know to challenge a decision and end up severely undercompensated.
The importance of legal advice and representation should never be underestimated. Anyone who thinks they might have a claim for a criminal injury can search for an accredited lawyer here.