1 min read
An extraordinary story in today's papers of a three year old who may be about to come into up to £20,000 from you and me, the taxpayers.
According to the reports, Jay Jones, then three, was left alone in a car in December 2007 when his friend, an unnamed fellow three year old, attacked him with a car jack. One can only tremble at the apparent strength of the anonymous toddler attacker, because the Daily Telegraph says that the attack was so ferocious that the car windscreen was shattered. The anguished parents ran to rescue the screaming Jay and found a bloodied car jack on the floor of the car. Jay was in hospital and required stitches; his ex-friend, meanwhile, has been taken into care.
The reason this case hit the headlines is because the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board initially refused to consider the issue because the three year old attacker was deemed too young to have hit Jay Jones with intent. Ten years old is the age at which a child is assumed to know what it is doing.
This week, however, a court over-ruled the CICB and has ordered it to consider compensation for Jay. The mother is quoted as saying she was determined to get "justice" for her son.
Justice, in my opinion, is being wilfully confused with venality. Compensation, from a three year old? Of course not. So, given the current lazy assumption that "someone has to pay", someone - probably a sharp lawyer - has decided that thousands of pounds should come out of the public purse. Amazing.