Back to top

Rights after “same roof”

15 April 19

Despite the welcome decision by the UK Government to abolish the “same roof rule” precluding criminal injuries compensation, questions remain over the extent of the rights of those affected

by Kim Leslie

The statutory instrument abolishing the controversial “same roof rule” has been laid before Parliament. The instrument will follow the affirmative procedure and, therefore, must be actively approved by both the House of Commons and House of Lords in order to become law. However, the legislation is expected to come into force by the end of April or early May 2019.


The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is made by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. The scheme has operated since 1964 and exists to compensate victims of violent crimes in the UK. Northern Ireland operates its own scheme.

Contained in the first scheme, established in 1964, was a “same roof rule” that precluded an award for criminal injury if, at the time of the incident giving rise to the injury, the applicant and the assailant were living together in the same household or under the “same roof”.

The rule was amended in subsequent schemes, but not retrospectively. Therefore, there was no redress for those abused between 1 August 1964 and 1 October 1979 by someone living under the same roof as them.

Legal challenges

This controversial rule has been widely challenged in all jurisdictions in the UK.

The Court of Appeal in England & Wales, in JT v First-tier Tribunal and CICA [2018] EWCA Civ 1735, found that the same roof rule was unlawful discrimination and constituted a breach of the appellant’s human rights. This was in conflict with the 2017 decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland, which had not determined that the rule was unlawful.

These conflicting decisions were overtaken by David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, committing to abolishing the same roof rule and the Government conceding the Scottish appeal to the Supreme Court.

Following the JT decision in July 2018, victims and those representing them had been unclear about the extent of the changes. Since the publication of the statutory instrument it has become apparent that the amendment not only abolishes the rule, but also makes clear that those who applied and were previously refused on the basis of the same roof rule can reapply.

Which scheme?

Of course these changes are to be welcomed. However, we must be clear that there are still issues with the 2012 scheme which is still significantly more restrictive and less generous than previous schemes. There is an argument that those previously refused should be considered under the scheme which they originally applied under. However, this is not incorporated into the new scheme and fresh applications will be bound by the rules of the new scheme. This of course is a policy decision to manage the budget. Figures published suggest that the CICA has previously refused about 4,000 applicants. It is to be hoped that the CICA contacts those affected to advise that their application can be resurrected.

The Victims' Commissioner (Baroness Newlove) in her recent published report also highlighted many areas of concern in relation to the application process, going so far as to say that the process was in danger of re-traumatising victims of crimes of violence. The Government has launched a wholesale review of the CICA scheme, and those representing victims of violent crime will be given the opportunity of feeding back issues surrounding the scheme and its operation in order to improve the experience of those who are victims of violent crime throughout the compensation process. This process should do more to heal than harm.

Kim Leslie is a specialist abuse lawyer for Digby Brown LLP and is an accredited member of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers

Have your say

Your comment

Angela A Rosier

Friday May 10, 2019, 09:27

I was abused by an uncle and he was found guilty but because we lived under same roof I was refused compensation. I was a 4yr old child at the time of abuse until I was 8yrs old when my mother got her own home so I had no say in were I lived so am now 46yrs old living with mental health problems and I've tried to kill myself etc and yes I've got anger issues. It's so unfair.

Pamela Banks

Tuesday May 14, 2019, 13:19

I was abused by both parents from the age of about 5 and continued until I was 16, I had no say as to where I lived... by using this rule you are saying it was ok... I have PTSD. I am seeing a therapist. I'm 56 and just want to have someone say this is not right, my life has been dictated to by not only sexual abuse but the mental and physical too.

Angela A Rosier

Saturday June 8, 2019, 12:32

I was abused by my uncle from the age 4 until 8 when my mum got her own house. I took him to court nearly 2 years ago and he was found guilty and I was turned down for compensation because we lived under same roof.... I was a 4 year old child – how could I have a say in where I lived or who I lived with? I struggle day to day with my mental health and I guess I always will due to everything but it's so unfair.

Teresa Sparks

Friday June 28, 2019, 23:38

Hi, thank you for your interest. I am a victim affected by the same roof rule and I want to be compensated under the rules of the C I C A scheme. I was a child at the time of my abuser's conviction but I was not informed then that I could apply for compensation and so didn't. I applied twice under later C I C A schemes but given the same roof rule, I was discriminated against and so the rules have now been changed to suit the C I C A rather than people like me who have been discriminated against since 1979 and who carry the harm that has resulted from this discrimination as a money saving exercise which if you think about it, is a continuation of the discrimination just in a different from.

If a crime was committed years ago but only recently came to light today, new laws would not be applied to the crime so why, as a victim of horrendous crime am I not treated in the same way? Then there is the relative value of the denied award to consider and the fact that apart from losing out on life time opportunities, like paying for therapy out of an award or moving away from abuser or setting up a busines, there's also the fact that interest could have been made on the money if saved or invested through a trust. I went off of my head and committed crime, some as a teenager and others as an adult and it is clear to me now that my crimes are related to my trauma and its symptoms but I will be further discriminated aginst because of it. I will also have to pay back any ESA and PIP benefits and NHS therapy costs because my inability to work is related to my trauma.

Had I been compensated earlier, I would not have been awarded those benefits by the time of appication and so therefore I would not have had to pay anything out towards those benefits and NHS costs. I also face the issue of not being healed, hence seeking more therapy and so therefore will find myself in the position of arging the fact that I have, through no fault of my own, used services that have not worked for me which may be grounds for not wanting to pay that money back. To be honest it feels like there is no point in me applying. I am also very upset that I and others like me were not directly asked for our opinions on the restructure of the scheme and no one from the government has looked into the effects the same roof rule has had on us. I don't even know where to get advice from. Good luck to you. TS


Saturday June 29, 2019, 22:14

My mum is currently going through with the compensation now because she was abused by her sibling from the age of 7 to 15 and as a result I was born from it. They lived under the same roof and she has been told that the law is changing and will be looked at in due course. So people that was abused by some one who lived in the same house can now finally be compensated for it. It doesn't change what has happened to them but it may give them a better life and also help them get the treatment they need to help them.