Skip to main content

IICSA published its final Report in October 2022. This website was last updated in January 2023.

IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Accountability and Reparations Investigation Report

F.2: The justification for a redress scheme

4. Some victims and survivors told the Inquiry that they were satisfied with the outcome of civil claims for damages or their applications for compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). However, the majority of those who provided evidence to the Inquiry said that both civil claims and the CICA are not suitable for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and can have a damaging impact.

5. Several claimant solicitors, together with a defendant insurer, recognised that an alternative to the civil justice system may benefit victims and survivors who are seeking redress.[1] Billhar Singh Uppal – the lead claimant lawyer in the North Wales litigation – said:

the civil litigation process is not really fit for this particular purpose. There are too many hurdles, too many ways that claims can be defeated on technicalities that victims and survivors simply do not understand.[2]

In his view, most of his clients resort to civil litigation because they have tried all other options.[3] His experience of redress schemes is that:

they have been a better experience. Victims have emerged from the process less bruised, wholler. Their trust in society restored not totally restored, but you’ve got to start somewhere.[4]

6. Similarly, Alistair Smith, the solicitor for a number of the Stanhope Castle victims and survivors, criticised both the civil justice system and the CICA scheme:

The system that we have got … just doesn’t work … I would like some kind of non-litigation, a sort of non-adversarial type of system.[5]

Back to top