header-logo header-logo

11 August 2021
Issue: 7945 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Judge orders rethink of blanket exclusion

The High Court has ordered the government to consult on its ‘unspent conviction rule’ for criminal injuries compensation

Under the rule, introduced in 2012, victims of crime are automatically excluded from compensation if they have an unspent conviction at the time of their application. Prior to 2012, there was discretion to consider exceptional circumstances.

Critics of the rule pointed out it disproportionately affected victims of child sex abuse and, in 2018, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) recommended the rule be changed. In response, the government set out its Victims Strategy, which included consulting on the IICSA recommendations.

The Ministry of Justice, however, later refused to consult and said an internal review had been conducted and the rule would not be changed.

Kim Mitchell, a survivor of a sexual assault by a school teacher when she was eight years old, brought a judicial review. She was refused compensation for the harm she suffered because of a minor Public Order Act offence she committed nearly 30 years later.

She argued she had a ‘legitimate expectation, based on clear and unambiguous representations’ made in the Victims Strategy that they would consult on the rule.

Ruling in R (oao Mitchell) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] EWHC 2248 (Admin), Mrs Justice Lang agreed the Justice Secretary’s decision not to consult on the issue was a breach of his promise and ordered he conduct a public consultation.

Lang J said a legal obligation may arise from a legitimate expectation of consultation, and a legitimate expectation may arise from an express promise or representation made by a public body.

Mitchell’s solicitor at the Centre for Women’s Justice, Debaleena Dasgupta, said: ‘Too often the government makes public statements which imply they will address concerns, but then take decisions behind closed doors which don’t.’

Issue: 7945 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll