The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?

Dr Jane Marriott and James McSweeney of the University of Surrey have produced a critical analysis of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in the current issue of Web Journal of Current Legal Issues.

In outline:

"This article addresses issues that arise out of a state's undertaking to compensate, from public funds, citizens it has placed in harm's way through its policy- and decision-making. In the past decade, many western liberal democratic states have been required to place a value on their citizens through the provision of compensation to troops injured as a result of their deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. Here we examine the UK's much criticised Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS), charting its development and analysing its strengths and its flaws, in order to assess whether it places adequate value upon the sacrifices of the citizens for which it was created. We investigate whether, in its attempts to create a compensatory framework that mimics Tort, the legislature has ultimately promised an equivalence that the AFCS fails to deliver in substance and we examine the idea that the AFCS represents an uneasy and unnecessary collapse of the distinction between corrective and distributive justice."


Fine Iolis but do you have a view?
I was medically discharged in 1986 after 15 years service because of injuries recieved during active service. I had a cheque for £18,000 a lot of money in 86. The financial advisor, recommended by the rehab board told me to put £15.000 into a scheme run by Royal Insurance (liverpool called The Royal Event) for 5 years. at the end of the term I recieved £6.000.
Please be aware that whatever the merits of the compensation scheme, everyone in the financial services industry will try to steal your money.
Please be aware that whatever the merits of the compensation scheme, everyone in the financial services industry will try to steal your money.
An entirely accurate observation. Regulated usury predominates in lending while derisory rates of interest prevail in saving. Permanent indebtedness is an extremely effective method of social control which is more difficult to achieve in respect of those whose income is generated from interest derived from capital. A 'neccessitous' man will submit to any condition the unscrupulous may impose upon him and will therefore never be a completely free man.
There are some inaccuracies in the document. It measures AFCS payouts against what would be received through litigation. AFCS is no blame, therefore a civil case may be pursued, but with two things in mind:

1. The MoD has combat immunity, I.e, the MoD cannot be sued for injuries sustained in combat, however they can still be sued if someone has been injured through negligence.

2. Any awards through AFCS will be taken into account if a case is found for the complainant.
The MOD, in a report, A Review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, announced on 9 Mar 2011 that changes to the Scheme will result in significant increases.

The scheme pays a tax-free lump sum for injuries due to service, with the most seriously injured given a tax-free, index-linked Guaranteed Income Payment for life.

Other changes include:

an increase to all lump sum award payments - except the top award which was recently doubled to £570,000;

Increase in the maximum award for mental illness from £48,875 to £140,000;

the creation of a new 'independent' medical expert group to advise on compensation; and

a revised approach to awarding compensation for multiple injuries.
It's improved, but it's still not good enough.

Also the time scale it took to implement this was disgraceful.

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads