Abstract

The theoretical basis of criminal injuries compensation schemes is vague and, hence, the level at which awards should be set is unclear. Until recently, awards under the British Scheme were pegged at the level of common law damages but there now exists a ‘tariff’ system which sets out a standard award for each type of injury regardless of the recipient's individual losses. Up until now, it has been fairly clear that an award of compensation represents, in concrete form, an expression of public sympathy with the victim. Under the new arrangements, it is probable that an award will also come to represent society's abhorrence of the offence. These two perceptions will sometimes come into conflict and the Scheme's shaky intellectual foundations mean that the tension between ‘victim-centred’ and ‘offence-centred’ approaches cannot easily be resolved. Future difficulties will be exacerbated by the fact that, in response to public criticism of the original Tariff Scheme, the new ‘hybrid’ Scheme continues to provide, in a very small number of the most serious cases, individualized ‘top-up’ payments to cover the victim's lost earnings and expenses