Worth Richard: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20998] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We come now to Part 3 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill and on behalf of National I indicate that throughout the extended debate that is taking place under urgency National has opposed this legislation. We have done that for reasons that we judge to be principled and for reasons that we think reflect substantial community concern about the Government’s policy to compensate prisoners. Part 3 is one of the wrap-up provisions that one often finds in legislation. It makes amendments to a number of Acts including the Human Rights Act the Legal Services Act the Limitation Act the Privacy Act and the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002. 
A most bizarre situation has arisen. Not more than 150 metres away from here—and I am now speaking with reference to clause 61 which is the first clause in Part 3—the Government’s lawyers are arguing that there should be no monetary compensation payable. They are arguing that it is not required to be done as a matter of international law and it is not required to be done as a matter of human rights. Yet here those lawyers retained by this Government are met by a completely contrary argument. It is the argument contained in this bill that prisoners should receive monetary compensation. So 150 metres away from here the Government’s lawyers are saying one thing and in this debating chamber the Government is saying precisely the opposite of that. To add fuel to the flames in that bizarre setting we have the Greens supporting this legislation through one of their members who stood up and said that although this is a bad bill they will vote in favour of it. 
I shall now talk about the Legal Services Act provisions in Part 3. They are all about the provision of legal aid to victims so that they can mount claims to the bounty that prisoners score in jail as a result of successfully receiving a damages award. What we are all about here then is the setting up of a special tribunal that will form judgments on the merit of victims’ claims. We have the situation that compensation after any legal aid charges and unpaid reparation are deducted will be held in trust. Steps will then be taken to identify and notify the prisoners’ victims that money is available. They then have a fixed period of 6 months I understand to file a claim. There will be and this is what this part is about eligibility for legal aid and normal court fees will be waived. So there is the rub. Legal aid is to be provided for those claimants who as victims seek to advance their claims. The claims will be determined by a District Court judge sitting as a victims’ special-claims tribunal but—here is the but—the plan is that claims will be determined on the papers. It will only be the rarest instance what are called “exceptional reasons” that will justify a hearing. So legal aid is given on the one hand and taken away on the other. 
The plan is basically that the tribunal will work from findings of fact in the criminal cases that led to the offenders’ conviction. What is wrong with that process is that it will lead to the re-victimisation of victims. I just throw up some of the challenges that will be presented to the person who is tasked to make the compensation apportionment decisions. We may have the case of living victims—say people who have suffered at the hands of a serial rapist. Let us say that there were five of them. How will the damages be apportioned? Will the damages be awarded to each victim equally?