Landmark go-ahead to sue sex attackers (From The Northern Echo)

Landmark go-ahead to sue sex attackers

6:01am Thursday 31st January 2008 in

• Skip social links
• Print
• Email
•  

A LANDMARK ruling in the House of Lords will allow thousands of victims of rape and sexual abuse to take legal action many years after their attacks took place.

The Law Lords ruled yesterday that a retired teacher attacked by "Lotto rapist" Iorworth Hoare - along with four separate victims of sexual abuse - can sue for damages, even though their claims fall outside a six-year legal limit.

It is estimated there are about 5,000 similar cases lodged with solicitors beyond the time limit, potentially worth millions of pounds to the victims.

The Law Lords unanimously agreed to give High Court judges the discretion in setting time limits to hear complaints.

But a North-East criminal justice expert has warned that those most at risk from legal action may be institutions such as churches, schools, charities, local authorities and their insurers.

The majority of publicity has centred on a retired teacher - Mrs A, now 79 - who was attacked by Hoare in Leeds, in 1988.

He was jailed for life in 1989, and spent 16 years in prison for the attempted rape of Mrs A and six other women he had attacked.

Hoare, now 58, had no financial assets until 2004, when on day release from prison he walked into a Middlesbrough shop and bought a winning £7m Lotto Extra ticket.

In a statement read on her behalf by lawyer Sandra Baker, Mrs A said: "I am delighted and relieved that my appeal to the House of Lords has been successful, and that I have succeeded in changing a law which will provide others in the future with a means of achieving justice.

"I hope that many others in the future will be able to benefit from the change in the law which I helped to bring about."

No one answered the door yesterday at Hoare's £700,000 mansion on the exclusive Darras Hall Estate, in Ponteland, near Newcastle.

Two of the other cases considered by the Law Lords involve attacks that have taken place in the North-East and North Yorkshire.

* Kevin Young is seeking damages against the Home Office after he was sexually abused by prison officer Neville Husband in 1977, while serving a short sentence at Medomsley Detention Centre, near Consett, County Durham.

Husband, who became a church minister, was jailed for eight years in 2003 for sexually abusing five young inmates, including Mr Young.

He also intends to take legal action against the Catholic Church over claims that he was abused at a residential Catholic school in Tadcaster, North Yorkshire, between 1974 and 1976.

* A man, identified as Mr C, was told by a judge he would have been entitled to damages of almost £100,000 against Middlesbrough Council after he was subjected to sexual abuse, between 1982 and 1988, at a school managed by the authority.

The ruling will be of most benefit to victims of child abuse, who are often reluctant to report it at the time.

Mr Young, 49, of York, said last night: "I am relieved. I have spent more than ten years living in darkness."

David Greenwood, of Jordans Solicitors in Wakefield, represents Mr Young. He said: "It's extremely good news for the thousands of claimants whose cases have either not been heard or who haven't plucked up enough courage to come forward and complain of abusive treatment."

Tracey Storey, a leading child abuse lawyer, said the Lords' decision effectively ended the "bizarre situation" whereby child abuse victims over the age of 24 could not bring a claim against their abuser.

Ms Storey, of solicitors Irwin Mitchell, said the ruling would have "huge ramifications for all victims of abuse and assault" and would open the floodgates to a large number of claims.

Dr Nicole Westmarland, a criminal justice expert at Durham University, said most sex attackers would not be worth suing because they would have little cash to provide any meaningful compensation.

She said actions were more likely to be taken against major institutions, such as councils, where a failure to protect people in their care from abuse could be proved.

"They are the ones that are going to be pursued now. Potentially, it could be expensive."

The other two cases in the Law Lords' ruling were:

* H v Suffolk County Council, in which the appellant claimed that while a resident at a school for difficult children managed by the council, he was sexually abused by a member of staff. He brought proceedings 12 years after the incidents and his case was thrown out because it was "out of time".

* X and Y v Wandsworth London Borough, in which the appellants allege that, between 1984 and 1987, they were sexually abused by a teacher at a council-run school.

They brought proceedings more than 15 years later and were told they would have won damages but for the time limit.