Sex abuse victims should not be allowed to sue their attackers years after the offence, a Liverpool solicitor has claimed.
The call came following a ruling that a victim of an attempted rape, by a man who later became a lottery multi-millionaire, could claim compensation 20 years after the attack.
The retired teacher, known as Mrs A, was initially barred from launching legal action against the so-called lotto rapist Iorworth Hoare as the crime occurred outside the time limit.
David Kirwan, a senior partner at Merseyside-based Kirwans Solicitors, said: “In my opinion victims of crime should not be allowed to sue their attackers 30 or 40 years after the incident.
“I have every sympathy with Mrs A and other victims in her position but it is most undesirable for people to be able to claim compensation 10 or 20 years after an incident.
“The reason we have the Limitation Act, which bars people from taking action outside a three year limit, is to bring closure to these crimes.
“It is fundamentally wrong for someone to decide to sue just because they discover a defendant has become a lottery winner twenty years down the line. That is certainly not the way to pursue justice.
“The courts have mis-used their power, this is a matter for parliament to legislate on not judges. This will simply result in a litigation open season.�
In Mrs A’s case, she received £5,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board after Hoare was jailed for life in 1989.
She filed for damages after Hoare, 59, won the Lotto Extra while on day release.
The ruling by the Law Lords means judges will be allowed the discretion to decide whether the time bar of the Limitation Act can be extended.
Previously, sexual abuse victims were prevented from bringing a claim more than three years after the offence or, in child abuse cases, more than three years after the victim reached 18.
Beyond the age of 21, the victims were therefore no longer able to file successfully unless they could invoke an escape clause. This clause means the claimant could disapply the act if they could prove that they did not have either the mental capacity to litigate, or knowledge of the facts or circumstances of the offence at the time it occurred.
For example, this has often been used when a victim discovers they were sexually abused as a child as the result of hypnosis.