A retired lecturer has won a court battle against civil servants who ruled she couldn’t receive criminal injuries compensation because she took 48 years to report rape claims to police.
The woman, who hasn’t been identified, gave birth to a boy after she was allegedly raped by a man in a “small religious community” in 1965.
The female didn’t contact detectives about what happened to her because she was “deeply ashamed and upset”.
She also lost her “independence, her confidence and her self esteem” over the attack.
But after becoming aware of Operation Yewtree – the police investigation into disgraced DJ Jimmy Savile – the woman became confident that detectives treated rape victims with respect.
The woman then contacted police officers in 2013 and officers arrested her alleged attacker soon afterwards. DNA tests also confirmed the man fathered the woman’s son. However, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refused to give the woman any compensation because she didn’t report the alleged attack within two years of it being committed.
Rules permitted by the board state that victims have to report the crime which they have been subjected to within that time period.
The woman appealed to a special appeal tribunal who upheld the board’s decision prompting her to instruct lawyers to go to the Court of Session, Scotland’s highest civil court.
The woman’s legal team asked judge Lord Glennie to quash the tribunal’s decision.
In a written judgment, Lord Glennie ruled in favour of the woman.
He ordered the case be sent back to a newly constituted appeal tribunal who will consider the woman’s claim afresh.
He concluded that the board didn’t do enough to consider the attitudes of society in 1965.
He wrote: “A crucial part of the case was she had suffered psychological and emotional trauma which had, in effect, prevented her from reporting the matter.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel