Figures from the government-run Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), which is responsible for making awards to victims of crime and terror attacks, reveal that out of 741 applications for physical and mental injuries 331 did not result in a financial award, meaning 45 per cent of claims were rejected.
The explosion in 2017 killed 22 people and around a thousand more suffered physical and mental injuries.
Over the last five-years CICA says it has received 838 applications from those claiming to have been physically and mentally injured and just over half of those cases, 410, resulted in a criminal injury payment being made.
In a Freedom of Information request made to CICA, Manchester based Hudgell Solicitors asked the authority how many applications for criminal injuries compensation it had received since the attack, which took place on 22nd May 2017
Hudgell Solicitors is representing a member of the emergency services who was working that evening and was one of the first responders at the scene following the explosion.
Based at a nearby building when the attack happened, the worker helped victims at the scene and witnessed some of the worst injuries and deaths.
The emergency worker, who wishes to remain anonymous, has since been diagnosed with moderate to severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a direct result of their experience.
However, an application to the CICA for an award based on mental health injuries was rejected.
The reason given for the unsuccessful claim was that the emergency worker was not “a direct victim” as they were not present at the scene when the bomb went off.
Nicola Bailey-Gibbs, associate solicitor in Criminal Injuries and Civil Liberties at Hudgell Solicitors, who represents the emergency worker said it was important to challenge the decision:
“We have, over many years, taken CICA cases to review and appeal. The reasons given for many unsuccessful claims range from, injuries not being serious enough to mental health conditions not being recognised. However, when we seek the advice of independent experts those initial decisions are often overturned.
“In this case, my client, an emergency worker, responded in the best way they possibly could during a terrorist attack, by doing their duty and helping the public in what were horrific circumstances.
“Those awful scenes will remain with this person forever; they have had a profound and debilitating effect on their mental health.
“CICA awards are meant to acknowledge the effects a criminal or terrorist act has on a victim, even if no-one has ever been prosecuted, and in this case, I feel it was wrong of CICA to dismiss the claim by saying in effect, ‘we’re sorry, but you were not there at the very moment when the explosion happened’.”
Mrs Bailey-Gibbs has asked for a review of the decision on the basis that CICA should not limit ‘the incident’ to the very moment the explosion occurred, and that ‘the incident’ covers a wider period of time in these circumstances.
“I am willing to take this case to appeal if need be. I feel it is not only unfair, but it fails to recognise the devastating experience suffered by so many people on that night, through no fault of their own, including those from the emergency services and from family members waiting outside for loved ones.”
