Abuse Redress schemes are an alternative to litigation and can be used to provide justice to a large number of individuals. However, how effective are they in practice? How can they be administered and do they provide the same outcome as litigation?

Redress Schemes can be an excellent alternative. They are non-adversarial and many of the hurdles that survivors must overcome, can be considered and drafted within a scheme to enable those who would otherwise be unable to bring a claim a chance to obtain a semblance of justice or closure. This does mean that many do not get ‘their day in court’ which for many is as, and if not, more important than compensation. Those who have suffered often explain that they wish to face those who were culpable and let them know how they have been failed.

There have been a number of redress schemes set up over the years of which have been more effective than others. Examples of these are:

• Jersey Redress Scheme
• Jimmy Savile: Victims’ compensation scheme 
• Northern Ireland Redress Scheme
• Lambeth Children’s Homes Redress Scheme

We also believe that survivors organisation such as the Shirley Oaks Survivor’s Association (who were successful in the implementation of the Lambeth Scheme) have great input in coordination of the survivors who can make applications for redress but also can be influential in the formation of scheme in the first instance.

Other associations such as the Jesus Fellowship Survivors Association and the Islington Survivors Network are also pushing for a suitable scheme to be set up to compensate many hundred of potential applicants who suffered as children.

The wording and drafting or a scheme can be fraught with difficultly and in order for any redress scheme to be effective it needs input from both sides in order to ensure that criticism cannot be levied at a later stage. It should make allowances for a number of variations and should in our view, provide compensation to as many who have suffered as possible. this is why it is so key that lawyers who represent survivors are liaised with at the earliest possible stage in the drafting process.

It is clear that there is likely to be shift towards redress schemes in the future. the Independent Inquiry in to Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has thought long and hard about whether they would be appropriate and has provided a report on this. We have also seen Defendant firms are also seemingly considering that schemes may be the best way forward. Browne Jacobson offered an event aimed at Directors and senior managers of children’s care and education providers, fostering agencies, Local Authorities, children’s charities, faith groups, sports bodies and their insurers a seminar titled ‘Child Abuse Claims – Design your own Redress Schemes and Codes of Conduct seminar’

Charles Derham, Solicitor-advocate and Director of Remedy Law has many years of experience in working alongside applicants in progressing via redress schemes and has successfully obtained justice via redress schemes for many survivors.