Survivors of the Home Office Windrush scandal who seek compensation should receive the same free legal support given to victims of the Post Office and Infected Blood scandals, a new JUSTICE report has found.

In recent years, the government has set up a series of compensation schemes in response to all three state injustices – yet only Windrush victims have been denied free legal help with their claims.

The Home Office – which runs the Windrush Compensation Scheme - has argued the process is more straightforward than the others and says it was designed to be accessible without free legal support.

But in a new report, JUSTICE has found the Windrush scheme is at least as complicated as the others, involving assessments of historic laws, facts and evidence that are complex even for lawyers and judges.

The failure to provide Windrush survivors free legal support unfairly disadvantages them, increasing the likelihood that they will miss out on compensation they deserve.

In a report published last year, JUSTICE found that Windrush compensation awards are up to eight times higher when claimants have legal support. Claimants received an average of £11,400 when they applied by themselves, but this figure rose to £83,200 when they had legal representation.

In one of the most striking examples, a claimant was refused any compensation when he applied on his own, but with the help of a lawyer was eventually awarded £295,000.

Zoe Bantleman, JUSTICE’s legal director, said: "Our research shows that all the compensation schemes are difficult to navigate, and legal representation is crucial when it comes to securing a fair settlement. There is no justification for treating Windrush claimants differently to Post Office or Infected Blood victims.

“Windrush survivors have already endured years of mistreatment at the hands of the state. If the Prime Minister is serious about righting this historic injustice, he must level the playing field and give them the legal support they need and deserve.”

For last year’s report into the Windrush compensation scheme, JUSTICE, the University of Sussex, and Dechert LLP reviewed extensive case files, interviewing claimants and lawyers with experience of the process.

The new research, conducted with King’s College London, draws upon interviews with lawyers involved in Post Office and Infected Blood claims, allowing detailed comparisons to be made between the schemes set up in response to all three scandals.

The historic nature of the Windrush, Post Office and Infected Blood scandals can make it difficult for claimants to prove they qualify for compensation and secure a fair settlement.  

JUSTICE found that the schemes covering all three scandals have flaws, but claimants on the Infected Blood and Post Office schemes benefit from relatively straightforward routes to establishing eligibility.

Post Office victims who have had their conviction quashed qualify automatically for compensation. Similarly, Infected Blood survivors are automatically eligible if they received assistance under previous state support schemes.

To establish their eligibility, Windrush claimants need to track down decades-old immigration forms, which may have gone missing or been destroyed by public bodies. Recalling precise dates and sequences of events in the distant past can also prove challenging, particularly for elderly claimants, some of whom are in their 90s. Victims suffering from trauma may find it too painful to engage with the scheme at all.

Shaila Pal, Director of King’s Legal Clinic, said: "Through our work supporting victims with compensation claims and our research, we continue to see how difficult the Windrush Compensation Scheme is to navigate and how crucial access to legal representation remains.

“Victims of the Post Office, Infected Blood, and Home Office Windrush scandals have all suffered profound injustices at the hands of the state. This report highlights that Windrush victims continue to face an additional injustice through what has become a two-tier system of redress, with the Windrush Compensation Scheme marked by significant structural failings. The evidence for change continues to grow, and we hope the government will act on the findings of our report to deliver a fairer and more accessible scheme.”

Lawyers for Windrush claimants have described the process as “torturous”, blaming a pervasive “culture of disbelief” among Home Office staff for delays and unreasonable refusals.

Some Post Office claimants also have the option of taking a fixed compensation payment - ranging from £75,000 to £600,000 - at the start of the process, allowing them to avoid the stress of providing detailed evidence to demonstrate their losses. This option has proved popular, with 97% of claimants on the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme choosing the fixed sum.

No equivalent option is available to Windrush victims, who have to demonstrate their losses through a lengthy and complex claims process, with no funding provided for any expert evidence which may be needed.

If Infected Blood or Post Office victims face difficulties navigating their compensation schemes, free legal advice is available to help ensure the right decision is made. Windrush victims, in contrast, are forced to rely on a patchwork of pro bono legal support, or pay for representation out of their compensation award.

Windrush victims also find themselves at a disadvantage if they wish to challenge their compensation offer, as the scheme lacks an independent appeals process, in contrast to the Infected Blood and Post Office schemes.

To improve fairness and accountability, the report calls for the provision of funded legal advice and the creation of an independent, expert appeals body with the power to make binding compensation awards for the Windrush scheme.

Notes to editors:

1. You can read the report in full here.

2. JUSTICE is a cross-party law reform charity working to build a fairer UK justice system within everyone’s reach. Over its 69-year history it has transformed the legal landscape for the better, led by evidence, expertise, and a focus on practical solutions. For example, key legal bodies we now take for granted such as the Ombudsman, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board were all proposed and supported into being by JUSTICE.

3. King’s Legal Clinic aims to improve access to justice through a range of activities, including providing free legal advice to members of the public and collaborating with local and international organisations on research and justice projects.

‍