Survivors of terror attacks say Government ‘left them to rot’
People injured physically and mentally in terror attacks want an inquiry into their treatment
SURVIVORS of terror attacks have called for a review of the way the Government treats victims, with some left waiting months for mental health support and compensation.
The demand came as Ben Nicholson, a British lawyer, confirmed that his wife, Anita, and two children, Alex, 14, and Annabel, 11, were among almost 300 people killed in the Easter Sunday bomb blasts in Sri Lanka. Eight Britons have been confirmed dead in the coordinated attacks, which took place at Christian churches and international hotels across Sri Lanka.
National Thowheed Jamath, a littleknown Islamist group, has been blamed for the attacks.
Victims of other atrocities have accused the Government of betraying them and even of “leaving them to rot”.
‘When terror strikes, our politicians promise survivors will be looked after. Those promises are being broken’
‘There needs to be a system to take people through from the moment of the attack to the eventual memorial’
TERROR attack victims who have been left waiting months for mental health support and years for compensation have accused the government of leaving them “to rot”.
Exposing shocking government failures, some said they contemplated suicide because the lack of support left them in despair.
Victims of the Westminster, London Bridge and Manchester Arena attacks have called for an independent review of the treatment of survivors and said they were left “falling through the gaps” after their release from hospital.
Survivors Against Terror (SAT), which counts Brendan Cox, the widower of murdered MP Jo Cox, among its campaigners, has begun crowdfunding for the inquiry.
Charlotte Dixon-sutcliffe, the chairman of SAT, whose husband David was killed in the 2016 Brussels Metro bombing, said: “Our experience has shown us how abysmal the level of support for many survivors of terror attacks are. Examples from countries like France show what can be done – and in our view their approach is much closer to what the public would expect. This review will be the first comprehensive one of how terror survivors are treated in different countries and will be the basis of our campaigns for better treatment in the future.
“When terror strikes, our politicians promise survivors will be looked after. Those promises are being broken.”
The Daily Telegraph spoke to four victims of terror attacks including a father whose son was killed in the 2005 Sharm El-sheikh bombing.
They painted an appalling picture of neglect by the authorities at a local and national level.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) was singled out for criticism, accused of being too slow to respond to claims and leaving victims “high and dry”.
Last year, just 13 people received the maximum £500,000 offered under the scheme, which is dwarfed by the millions available to civil litigants who lodge personal injury claims.
Although a specialist Home Office unit was set up for victims of the 2017 terror attacks, charity Victim Support warned that it needs “a huge number of improvements,” and survivors said it had not helped them put their lives back together.
Travis Frain, 21, who was nearly killed in the Westminster terror attack in March 2017, accused politicians of failing to take victims seriously.
Manchester Arena bombing victim Ruth Murrell, 48, revealed she was put on a 12-month waiting list for counselling even though she felt suicidal after witnessing her best friend’s death in the attack on May 22 2017.
Marine Vincent, 37, a London Bridge survivor and French national who has lived in London for 13 years, pointed out the disparity between the British and French response.
She received an instant payment under France’s Guarantee Fund for Victims of Terrorist and Other Criminal Acts “with no questions asked” and has now had her full payout.
Trevor Lakin, 70, whose son Jeremy died in Sharm El-sheikh, successfully campaigned for British victims of overseas terror attacks to be awarded compensation under CICA but accused the government of controlling the money too tightly.
The survivors and bereaved family members told their stories after a survey found 76 per cent of victims of terror attacks felt mental health services needed improving.
In addition, 52 per cent said financial support was inadequate and 28 per cent said legal support was lacking.
Of those affected by overseas terrorism, 46 per cent said government support was lacking.
Rachel Almeida, of Victim Support, said: “There is a huge number of improvements that are needed to ensure lessons are learned from 2017.
“It’s not just victims who are psychologically affected but witnesses – like parents having to search through dead bodies to check if one of them is their child. It’s horrific.”
Describing a “postcode lottery” when it comes to the provision of mental health services, she added: “There is also a lot of confusion in Britain over who is responsible for responding and when. At a local level the thinking is not always joined up.
“I wouldn’t say with confidence that we’re ready if there’s another attack.”
Nick Taylor, chief executive of the Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Peace Foundation, a much smaller organisation that helps victims of terror and their families, agreed.
Despite helping an additional 800 people since 2017, the charity’s £150,000 Government grant has not been increased since 2010.
“The act of terrorism is a crime against the state as well as the individual but no one really wants to grasp the nettle,” he said.
“We support an independent inquiry. There needs to be a system in place to take people through from the moment of the attack to the eventual memorial.
“There shouldn’t be a difference between how someone caught up in Manchester is treated to London Bridge but unfortunately that appears to be the case.”
Keith Barrett, personal injury lawyer at Fieldfisher, which represents Mr Frain, accused the CICA of leaving victims “to rot”.
“Our clients, who have been seriously injured in crimes of violence, are just numbers to CICA,” he said. “They are notoriously slow and actually end up costing victims money because they refuse to pay for their costs.”
Mr Barrett added: “After the Tube bombings in 2005, CICA set up a specialist unit with experienced claim handlers but that’s not happened for more recent terror attacks.
“They make you work for the compensation and all the time the clock is ticking, costing the client money. They are against interim payments so victims are left high and dry.”
Mr Barrett also highlighted the unfairness of how those hit by cars in the Westminster and London Bridge attacks could lodge civil claims for millions against car insurers while others who had been stabbed had to rely on CICA, with a top limit of £500,000.
Ben Wallace, the Security Minister, said: “This Government has worked to ensure that victims of terrorism receive coordinated, effective and comprehensive support.
“After every incident, the Home Office works … to ensure victims receive support from every sector and at both local and national level.”
A CICA spokesman said: “Last year we announced a review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, to ensure it responds to the changing nature of crime and better supports victims.”