Abuser walks free from court

The Daily Mail reports how a teacher, who admitted the abuse of a child in 2004 to 2005 was allowed to walk free from a court.

The judge criticised the conduct of the child’s family. According to the report, they had accepted £18,000 from the teacher but did not notify the police and the money was spent on a deposit for a new home.

The teacher was convicted of his crimes, but he was not given any custodial sentence.  He had in fact been in prison already for six months, but following his trial he was put on a three-year community sex offenders’ treatment programme, placed on the sex offenders’ register for ten years and banned from ever working with children. The judge said that the teacher had effectively already been fined and punished for his crime and the unusual circumstances had made sentencing very difficult.

In the writer’s experience, the sentence handed out by the judge was not unusual for the offence, in respect of which the abuser was actually convicted. What is striking is the report that the abuser ”paid off” the victim’s parents. Can the child still sue the abuser?

The writer thinks that he can. He would be suing a Defendant who has admitted the abuse and he has until his 21st birthday to bring the claim, although that may be extended in exceptional circumstances. See A v Hoare 2008. He may also have a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

What about the £18,000 allegedly paid over?

Firstly any settlement that is reached on behalf of a child must by law be approved by a court. Rule 21.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules covers this point. If this money was in fact paid over without a court hearing, then it has no validity as a full and final settlement.

Secondly if the true basis of the settlement was to prevent a report being made to the police, then as an agreement, it would be illegal.

Thirdly the writer thinks that the abuser could not argue that the £18,000 should be taken into account in any further settlement. Quite apart from the lack of court approval and the potential illegality of the agreement, it appears from the report that the money did not go to the child. Possibly it might have been placed in trust for the child (albeit as part of a house), so that he could obtain it at the age of 18. However such a trust, founded on monies obtained in this manner, would raise further legal issues.

One other possibility lies under the Powers Of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000

Section 126 states that where an individual has been convicted of an offence, the court may before sentencing him, make a financial circumstances order with respect to him.

Section 130 states that a court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence may on application or otherwise, make an order requiring the convicted person to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from that offence or any other offence which is taken into consideration by the court in determining sentence.

Compensation shall be of such amount as the court consider appropriate, having regard to any evidence and to any representations that are made by or on behalf of the accused or the prosecutor.

Section 134 deals with the effect of the compensation order on a subsequent award of damages in civil proceedings. The damages in the civil proceedings shall be assessed without regard to the order or award, but the Claimant may only recover an amount equal to the aggregate of the following: –

Any amount by which they exceed the compensation and a sum equal to any portion of the compensation which he fails to recover.

The writer has never had a case where this power has been used, although it would be interested to see it exercised. Coming back to the case, which is the subject of this blog, the report does not say whether the powers under this Act were considered by the judge.