Personnel Today
  • OHW+
  • Resources
    • Clinical governance
    • Disability
    • Ergonomics
    • Health surveillance
    • OH employment law
    • OH service delivery
    • Research
    • Return to work and rehabilitation
    • Sickness absence management
    • Wellbeing and health promotion
  • Conditions
    • Mental health
    • Musculoskeletal disorders
    • Blood pressure
    • Cancer
    • Cardiac
    • Dementia
    • Diabetes
    • Respiratory
    • Stroke
  • CPD
  • Webinars
  • Jobs
  • Personnel Today

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • OHW+
  • Resources
    • Clinical governance
    • Disability
    • Ergonomics
    • Health surveillance
    • OH employment law
    • OH service delivery
    • Research
    • Return to work and rehabilitation
    • Sickness absence management
    • Wellbeing and health promotion
  • Conditions
    • Mental health
    • Musculoskeletal disorders
    • Blood pressure
    • Cancer
    • Cardiac
    • Dementia
    • Diabetes
    • Respiratory
    • Stroke
  • CPD
  • Webinars
  • Jobs
  • Personnel Today

Health and safetyWellbeing

Criminal injuries compensation: Footing the bill for violent crime

by Personnel Today 8 Feb 2006
by Personnel Today 8 Feb 2006

The government has recently published proposals to reform the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. One idea is that victims attacked during the course of their employment should be compensated by their employers, rather than by the state.

Under current rules the scheme compensates all victims of violent crime according to the severity of the injuries they sustain. The victim is also entitled to recover loss of earnings up to 500,000.

Protection
Many victims of violent crime awarded compensation under the scheme are injured during the course of their employment. They include public sector employees such as police officers, prison officers and hospital workers, and employees in the private sector, such as bank staff and security guards.

The government consultation paper asserts that the scheme, in its current form, could be seen to act as a disincentive for employers to make the workplace safe and do everything reasonably possible to protect employees.

The proposals suggest that where an employee suffers injury as a consequence of violent crime at work, whether or not reasonable steps have been taken to prevent attacks or protect staff, the employer will be required to compensate the employee.

Insurance
They further state: “There is an argument for saying that employers are best placed to protect employees and minimise the risk to them – and should, through their insurance or otherwise, bear the risk and cost of compensating them for injuries if they fail to do so.”

Under such proposals every employer would be required to act as an insurer for staff who are attacked during the course of their employment, whether or not they have taken reasonable care.

The ramifications of a change of this magnitude cannot be overstated. Currently, employers have a common law duty to take reasonable care towards their employees and are subject to a raft of health and safety regulations de-signed to protect employees in the workplace. Despite complying with common law and statutory duties, an employer would still be liable to compensate an employee who was the subject of an unforeseeable act of violence committed by a third party.

For example, a small courier company sends its driver to deliver parcels. If the driver is hijacked and robbed and during the attack is seriously injured to the extent that he cannot work again, a claim would currently be met by the scheme and capped at 500,000.

The employer would only be liable if it could be established it had failed to take reasonable care or had failed to comply with a statutory duty such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

Cost
But under the new proposals the employer would be required to compensate that driver, even though it had complied with those duties, and would face a crippling bill if uninsured.

In the public sector the costs would be met from existing budgets unless new money was made available. In the private sector the costs would be met by either the employer or by its insurers. Small employers in particular would be hit hard.

At present many small employers find the costs of employer liability insurance inordinately expensive. This proposal would add to the cost and possibly amount to another tax on business.

It is, in effect, transferring a liability previously met by the state – and contributed to by all taxpayers – to the individual business. A failure to obtain such insurance (assuming it is not required to be compulsory) could, in the event of a violent attack on a staff member, potentially cripple a business.

Jeffrey Jupp is a barrister in the commercial and employment group at Severn Bedford Row Chambers

Employers have until 1 March to make their views known: www.cjsonline.gov.uk

Employers to face liability for victims of crime at work www.personneltoday.com/33001.article

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Nightmare on high street www.personneltoday.com/32354.article

Conflict management: when colleagues turn www.personneltoday.com/29773.article


Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
City sees IT recruitment boom
next post
Transsexuals in the workplace: Crossing the gender divide

You may also like

Welfare cuts would ‘undermine workforce inclusion and business...

27 Jun 2025

One in four young workers rate mental health...

17 Jun 2025

CIPD Festival of Work: ‘Wellbeing is not an...

11 Jun 2025

Employers must offer more flexibility to working carers,...

9 Jun 2025

CIPD: A quarter feel work has negative impact...

9 Jun 2025

Why cash lump sums may not be the...

5 Jun 2025

Sickness absence falls to almost pre-pandemic rate

4 Jun 2025

One-third have witnessed substance abuse at work

3 Jun 2025

Preparing for a new era of workforce planning...

3 Jun 2025

Three ways technology can boost wellbeing outcomes

27 May 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • OHW+
  • Resources
    • Clinical governance
    • Disability
    • Ergonomics
    • Health surveillance
    • OH employment law
    • OH service delivery
    • Research
    • Return to work and rehabilitation
    • Sickness absence management
    • Wellbeing and health promotion
  • Conditions
    • Mental health
    • Musculoskeletal disorders
    • Blood pressure
    • Cancer
    • Cardiac
    • Dementia
    • Diabetes
    • Respiratory
    • Stroke
  • CPD
  • Webinars
  • Jobs
  • Personnel Today