Work crimes compensation controversy

Since its establishment in 1964, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme has paid out more than £3 billion in compensation to victims of crime in recognition for their pain and suffering and other losses.

In December 2005, the Government published a consultation paper, Rebuilding Lives - Supporting Victims of Crime, with the objective of overhauling the compensation system to provide better support for the victims of crime.

One of the more controversial proposals put forward is that victims of crime at work should be compensated by their employer, rather than the CICS. It is suggested that employers are best placed to protect their employees and minimise the risks to them. As a result employers would bear the risk and cost of compensating them, through employers' liability insurance.

It is questionable why employers' liability insurance should be seen as a substitute for compensating victims of crime, unless it is to further the idea of insurance as a form of indirect taxation. Such a move would inevitably drive up the price of premiums. Employers must keep the workplace safe, and there are extensive regulations in place to ensure that they do so. However, even the most prudent employers, who take all the necessary steps to protect their employees, will find it impossible to protect each and every employee in all circumstances from the risk of violent crime.

In most instances violent crime is unlikely to be the employer's fault or within their control. If they are at fault, or vicariously at fault, then civil proceedings are likely to ensue with damages awarded.

If employers are to be liable for the kind of incidents outlined in the report, it will create a two-tier process: a civil claims process where fault must be proved, and a criminal claims process that is not fault based. Many issues would have to be addressed. For example, what would be the consequences of a criminal injury assessment with which neither the employer nor the insurer agreed?

The Home Office has yet to publish the results of the consultation, which closed in March 2006. Brokers should, however, make their employer clients aware of the threat and encourage them to monitor developments closely.