Ian Huntley, the Soham killer, has launched a legal bid against the Government for compensation after his throat was slashed in prison, the Government confirmed.
The 36-year-old double child murderer, who is serving two life sentences, is suing for tens of thousands of pounds following the attack by a fellow inmate in March.
The Prison Service late on Friday confirmed his claim, which it vowed to “vigorously defend”.
But senior government sources dismissed reports that he was demanding almost £100,000 as “complete rubbish”.
Huntley was allegedly attacked in the health care wing of high security HMP Frankland, in Co Durham by Damien Fowkes, a 34 year-old robber serving a life sentence for threatening a family at knifepoint during a break-in.
The former school caretaker, who murdered 10 year-old friends Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, in 2002, needed emergency hospital treatment after being slashed across the throat.
It was widely thought Fowkes, a former drug addict, allegedly attacked Huntley with the blade a day before a planned search of their prison for weapons.
The Prison Officers Association has warned Huntley, who has been scarred for life, could try to sue for compensation.
The Daily Mail reported that Huntley was seeking £20,000 for his injuries and a further £60,000 in punitive damages because he believes the authorities should have better protected him. Experts have said he could win £20,000.
Such a payout would be almost the same amount awarded to the girls’ parents, after the two families received just £11,000 each following their daughters’ deaths in Soham, Cambridgeshire.
Figures paid out for the death of a child are lower than for the death of an adult because the financial impact is deemed to not be as great.
Huntley is also expected to separately to claim compensation, reportedly up to £15,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
There was speculation the government would attempt to settle the claim to avoid any embarrassing court hearings, which could eventually cost the taxpayer up to £1million.
Earlier this year, Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, said the government had "absolutely no intention" of paying compensation to Huntley over the attack.
Campaigners also questioned whether any compensation would be paid to three prison officers who were stabbed by an inmate wielding a shard of glass just a week before the attack on Huntley.
Colin Moses, president of the Prison Officers Association, said: “The prison officers… will have to fight tooth and nail for any sort of compensation, yet it will almost certainly be served up on a plate for Ian Huntley.”
It is not the first attack on Huntley, who has previously made at least three suicide attempts.
A fellow inmate threw boiling water over Huntley while he was on the health care wing of Wakefield Prison, West Yorks, in 2005.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “Ian Huntley is bringing a claim against the Ministry of Justice following an assault by another prisoner.
“The claim is currently being vigorously defended.”
He declined to comment further.
Fowkes was jailed for life at Northampton Crown Court in 2002 after pleading guilty to robbery.
He had broken in to a house and threatened the occupiers with a knife before escaping with jewellery and money.
Comment: I believe that Huntley is entitled to a claim for damages and should win against the MoJ. However, I do not fancy his chances with a claim in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This tends to be for innocent victims of crimes. I don't think that Jack Straw stating that the government had no intention of paying compensation to Huntley was a wise thing to say. It was an unthinking and knee-jerk political response to a media question relating to a legal issue.
6 comments:
What would he do with the money?
Knee-jerk maybe but this man will get nothing. It is far more than a legal issue because everybody knows what he did, and most thinking people think he should not be allowed to live. Seeing as he is still breathing, I think he should shut up before someone finishes him off. That includes you, you pedantic fool.
Just heard you on today's PM programme. You made the mistake of describing Huntley as a human being. No human could do what he did. When you kill children and sexually abuse for much of your life you are no longer human.
Huntley made his choice - his victims did not. Huntley's own choices put him where he is and only a fool would be shocked to know that prisons are full of violent people. However, in his case it probably safer for him than if he was allowed to step into the outside world.
"Such a payout would be almost the same amount awarded to the girls’ parents, after the two families received just £11,000 each following their daughters’ deaths in Soham, Cambridgeshire.
Figures paid out for the death of a child are lower than for the death of an adult because the financial impact is deemed to not be as great."
This is not quire correct - the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays out £5500 to each qualifying claimant who loose a loved one due to a violent crime, £11,000 if there is only one qualifying claimant, this is the award regardless of the age of the victim, however you would be paid an additional sum if you were financially dependant on the victim and if you loose a a parent you would be given an additional sum for loss of parental services payable up to the applicant reaches their 18th birthday.
Secondly the chances of Ian Huntly being paid an award by the CICA is non-existant as they take into account an applicant's previous convictions and have a 'penalty points system' which allocates points to each previous conviction, the more serious the convictions the more points it gets allocated, any period of imprisonment over 30 months is deemed to be never spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and is given 10 points which is the point where an applicant would be refused an award due to their previous convictions anthing from 1 point to 9 points would attract a reduced award rather than a refusal. Given that Ian Huntly is serving two life imprisonments for double murder would definately mean he would not be given an award.
While i can in no way condone his crimes, there is no doubt that the prison service has a duty of care to every prisoner.
That said, and i know this is slightly hypocritical, but if i were the judge i would let him have the legal victory that he no doubt deserves, but i wouldn't give him the money. I'd make it a condition of awarding compensation that 50% goes to a victim support charity, and 50% to a prison charity or the Samaritans.
I think that would be the fairest result in this case.
The current legal position in general renders the chances of any prisoner assaulted in prison by another prisoner getting compensation virtually nil so the entire 'should he or shouldn't he?' discussion re Huntley is generally irrelevant and being used for a completely different agenda.
Post a Comment