Lottery Rapist Case Gives Hope To Victims Of Abuse In Local Authority Care

The 78-year-old woman tried to sue Iorworth Hoare after he won the lottery in 2004, but was unsuccessful because, as the sex attack happened 19 years ago, she was held to be out of time.

What has been less widely reported is that this case was one of a number of cases brought together to be heard before the Law Lords. The decision in A v Hoare has wider implications beyond the unusual facts of the case. It opens up the opportunity for many victims to sue local authorities for compensation for sexual abuse suffered whilst in their care.

Many victims of childhood sex abuse wait a long time to bring claims. This means they can only succeed if their claims are of types which are not time-barred.

A right to bring legal proceedings does not last forever. The Limitation Act 1980 imposes time limits on different categories of claim. One category is claims for tort; a civil wrongful act. There is an absolute time-limit of six years from the date of the wrong or, for children, six years from their 18^th birthday.

A second category is a claim for damages for personal injuries caused by negligence or breach of duty. Here, a claim must be brought within three years of the wrong; of the child attaining the age of 18 or three years of the ‘date of knowledge’ of the claim, if later. Importantly, the courts have a discretion to permit late ‘category 2’ claims to proceed. Therefore victims of childhood sex abuse, who wait before bringing claims, can only hope to gain compensation if theirs is a ‘category 2’ claim.

The liability of local authorities for sexual abuse has changed over the years. In 1993, the Law Lords found that indecent assault was a deliberate act of an abuser and could not be classed as negligence or breach of duty (Stubbings v Webb). Accordingly, they were ‘category 1’ cases subject to a non-extendable six year time limit. At the time Stubbings did not actually make much practical difference. This was because it was generally considered that, in the case of sex abuse, victims could only seek damages from their abuser who invariably did not have the means to pay any claim.

In 2001, however, the Law Lords decided that claims against abuser’s employers were possible on the basis of ‘vicarious liability’ (Lister v Hesley Hall). As Stubbings was still ‘good law’ although claims against authorities were now possible, they had to be brought within the six year time limit for ‘category 1’ cases unless the abuse was in some way linked to ‘systemic neglect’ by the employing local authority (thus turning it into a ‘category 2’ case). But this was difficult to prove, particularly as abusers invariably carefully covered their tracks from all, including their employers.

The Law Lords in A v Hoare have overturned Stubbings. Indecent assault claims therefore fall within ‘category 2’. There is now no absolute time limit, although the court must give permission for a late claim to proceed. As a result, blameless local authorities are now more likely to face claims for sex abuse committed by their employees.