It's two years years ago today that five people were killed when Khalid Masood mowed pedestrians down on Westminster Bridge before stabbing to death a House of Commons police officer.
Using the message of #LondonUnited, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: “We stand together on the second anniversary of the attack to remember those who so tragically lost their lives.
"They will forever be in my prayers, as will the families and friends of those affected.
“As a city, we will never forget what happened that day, and the courage and bravery of our emergency services and first responders who ran towards danger to protect us.
"In particular, I want to pay tribute to PC Keith Palmer, who made the ultimate sacrifice whilst protecting our Parliament.
“The recent terrorist atrocity in Christchurch reminds us that we must do much more to stop the promotion of evil ideologies."
While the UK suffered three terror attacks in 2017 – Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge – the compensation and aftercare victims receive remains inadequate, says a leading personal injury lawyer.
Damian Horan, a senior partner at Moore Blatch legal firm, is acting for a victim of the Westminster terror attack.
Here he tells us why so many victims do not get the justice they deserve...
"Whilst significant attention is given in the immediate aftermath to these acts of terror and the people involved, often the aftercare that victims and their families will require in the long-term is given little consideration.
It is only right innocent victims of acts of terror, many of whom live with serious life-changing injuries such as paralysis and psychological conditions, and their families are properly supported with the care they deserve.
Unfortunately, the UK’s compensation scheme for victims of terrorism is a complete injustice.
It is of great concern that victims of different styles of acts of terror are not all treated equally and are entitled to inequitable compensation payments.
This unfair outcome hinges around the use or disuse of a car – an insignificant difference in such incidences that has been central to the support victims could expect to receive.
The reality is that due to a mere technicality – namely the issue of whether a car was involved (Westminster) or not (Manchester, London Bridge) – some victims may be eligible for compensation through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), which allows for an unlimited settlement based on the needs of the victim.
The situation is, however, different for the victims of attacks with no vehicle involvement. With no car, claims have been pursued through the Government’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).
Since April 1996, the CICA has administered compensation to victims of criminal activity according to a tariff set by Parliament.
The tariff levels offer different awards to applicants according to the relative seriousness of their injuries, with the maximum tariff currently set at £500,000.
his means that no matter how profoundly an individual has been affected by a criminal incident, the maximum settlement they can receive is capped at £500,000.
The situation is made more unsatisfactory by the fact that under the scheme legal fees incurred when making a claim are also taken out of the tariff.
Prior to April 1996 victims of crime, regardless of whether a vehicle was involved or not, were awarded compensation by common law based on their needs.
In addition to legal costs were provided for, which is the normal way personal injury compensation is assessed.
Consequently, should victims of the Manchester and Westminster attacks have suffered the same injuries with identical future outcomes, they would be entitled to different support and compensation.
A difference which would mostly likely prove insufficient to fully cover the victim’s loss of earnings, care costs, and indeed legal fees. This is a complete injustice and needs to be addressed.
The MIB is liable to pay compensation to individuals injured in a road traffic incident when the driver is uninsured.
In incidents involving acts of terrorism, insurers can inevitably avoid liability due to policy exclusions, leaving the driver uninsured and the MIB liable.
It is worth noting that under previous rules the MIB could not be held liable for damage caused by an act of terrorism.
However, new rules that came into effect on March 1 2017 – just three weeks before the Westminster attack – removed this exception, allowing victims to pursue a claim against the MIB.
In September 2018 the Justice Secretary David Gauke announced a review of CICA.
This followed a courageous public campaign by victims of sexual assault, many of whom have been denied help from the CICA.
In announcing the review, the Government recognised that people left with serious life changing injuries after the terrorist attacks in 2017 highlighted questions about the suitability of the scheme in providing support.
However, this will be little comfort for victims who are either still waiting to receive adequate compensation or have already accepted a smaller, inadequate payment.
Looking abroad, there are examples of other countries that have got this right.
For example, New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) gives a route for all victims and their families to get the help they need. One equitable process for everyone.
It is neither fair nor right that the UK has an inequitable compensatory route for the victims of terrorism.
I would encourage the Government to recognise that the CICA is unable to adequately provide victims of acts of terror with the support they require and either remove the cap, which arbitrarily deprives victims of the support they require both now and in the future, or consider setting up a new body, which all victims of terror can fairly access. F
or the innocent victims of terrorism, providing a consistent and equitable compensation approach is the very least we can do."
Different compensation levels for acts of terror
The Government’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority administers compensation to victims of criminal activity, including acts of terror.
The maximum tariff is currently set at £500,000.
If a car is involved in the act of terror, victims will be eligible for compensation through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB).
This allows for an unlimited settlement based on needs, which are often in excess of £10 million in the most serious cases.