This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jimmy-savile-charity-to-challenge-victims-compensation-scheme--despite-not-being-required-to-cover-costs-9638166.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Jimmy Savile charity ‘to challenge victims compensation scheme’ – despite not being required to cover costs Jimmy Savile charity ‘to challenge victims compensation scheme’ – despite not being required to cover costs
(35 minutes later)
The charity set up in Jimmy Savile’s name is trying to challenge an agreed system of compensation for his sex abuse victims, their lawyers have said. A charity set up in Jimmy Savile’s name is trying to challenge an agreed system of compensation for his sex abuse victims, lawyers have said.
According to a firm representing 176 of the late BBC DJ’s victims, the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust is to take its case to the Court of Appeal – despite not appearing to have anything to lose from the scheme. According to a firm representing 176 of the late BBC DJ’s victims, the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust has been granted permission to take its case to the Court of Appeal – despite not being among the organisations that stand to pay out.
The Leeds-based charity, which according to the BBC controls £3.7 million, was set up to “provide funds for the relief of poverty and sickness” but closed in 2012 in the wake of the Savile revelations. The Leeds-based charity was set up to “provide funds for the relief of poverty and sickness”, and still controls £3.7 million despite reports it was due to close in 2012 in the wake of the Savile revelations.
Lawyers said they could not understand why the charity now wanted to challenge the victims’ compensation package. Lawyers said they could not understand why the charity now wanted to challenge the compensation package - particularly as without t there could be nothing left for the victims.
Liz Dux, an abuse lawyer at Slater & Gordon, said the scheme had been drafted by QCs representing the victims, the NHS, the BBC and the Savile estate – the funds of which are separate to those of the charity.Liz Dux, an abuse lawyer at Slater & Gordon, said the scheme had been drafted by QCs representing the victims, the NHS, the BBC and the Savile estate – the funds of which are separate to those of the charity.
She said there was apparently “no explanation” as to why the charity would take up the option to appeal the scheme, approved by the high court earlier this year. The charitable trust will then be the main recipients of any funds in the estate that are left over.
Ms Dux said: “The victims will be left angry and disappointed by this decision. It is a massive set back to those people abused by Savile – they have already waited far too long for justice. Ms Dux said there was apparently “no explanation” for the charity's actions, and urged the Court of Appeal to reject its claim.
She told The Independent: “There is a real concern that if this appeal is successful there will be nothing left to compensate Savile’s victims.
“[They] will be left angry and disappointed by this decision,” Ms Dux said. “It is a massive set back to those people abused by Savile – they have already waited far too long for justice.
“The scheme is a pragmatic and sensible solution to what will otherwise be protracted and hugely expensive litigation.“The scheme is a pragmatic and sensible solution to what will otherwise be protracted and hugely expensive litigation.
“The charitable trust offered no explanation then as to why it objected to the scheme and even now we and the victims remain in the dark. No money can be paid from the charitable trust to compensate victims.“The charitable trust offered no explanation then as to why it objected to the scheme and even now we and the victims remain in the dark. No money can be paid from the charitable trust to compensate victims.
“The victims deserve redress and closure. They have suffered enough. We urge the Court of Appeal to back the original scheme as previously agreed so this process can move towards a much-desired conclusion.”“The victims deserve redress and closure. They have suffered enough. We urge the Court of Appeal to back the original scheme as previously agreed so this process can move towards a much-desired conclusion.”