Roy Larner, dubbed the Lion of London Bridge after tackling terrorists, won't get a payout due to his criminal record.

We asked our MPs if they think victims should be barred from receiving compensation if they have a criminal record.


I think most people would feel that if they or their loved ones were in immediate danger of being attacked by terrorists, they would appreciate any help that was offered.

To attempt to fight back in such a hostile and dangerous environment takes a strength that none of us know whether we possess unless faced with such a terrible situation. And let’s hope we never have to find out.

But that split second decision can make the difference between life or death.

If someone is free to walk our streets and they take heroic action to save others in our society from harm, they should be appropriately rewarded.

I generally come back to a common sense, real-life position of ‘what would I do?’

I’d like to think, faced with a situation of imminent danger, I would do my bit to keep others safe, if I could. And conversely, if I or my family were in danger, and someone was in the right place at the right time (or not as the case may be) that they would do all they could to help - criminal record holder or not.

We are a second chance society and I’m proud to live in a country that believes, legislates and looks after people to rehabilitate and re-structure their lives to be the best they can be.

What kind of society would it be if we didn’t believe in second chances and seeing the best in people?

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, an executive agency sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, may refuse or reduce a payment if someone has a criminal record and also take into account the character of the applicant.

A penalty point system is used to decide how much of a reduction is required, or whether a payment is withheld. The more recent the conviction and the more serious the sentence, the more penalty points the conviction will attract.

But the authority is not bound by it and the decision can be appealed. If he was my constituent I would advise him to do so.


There is something quite shocking that a victim of a terror attack, a victim who tried to confront the attackers, is being denied justice by the state.

The London Bridge attack in June 2017 was a shocking and brutal terrorist atrocity that was designed to drive fear in our country, to make us cower to these jihadist thugs in their pursuit of an ideology of hatred. Those survivors of this attack, and the all-too-many others that have occurred on our soil over the last few years, deserve the full support of the state behind them.

However Roy Larner, a man who directly confronted the jihadi attackers and sustained a number of stab wounds as a result and was later diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety, has been denied access to victim compensation in the wake of the attack owing to unspent criminal convictions.

There must be some middle ground. Of course, there are some whose cases will be more severe where the crimes may be so heinous that victim support should be withheld, and indeed Mr Larner should not be excused for his crimes. But in his case, as a man who suffered so grievously both physically and mentally, it seems unfair that he should be denied the compensation he is rightfully owed.

This is not to mention that he received the unspent convictions after he was attacked in June 2017. He sustained the injuries before any crime on his part was committed, so why is justice acting in a retroactive manner?

There needs to be a sense of humanity in our justice system. That is not to say that those who commit a crime should be let off the hook, but simply that we need to take these blanket punishments need to be taken with a pinch of salt.


The foundation of our country relies on people who have committed a crime serving their time and then being rehabilitated and accepted back into society.

So, it seems to me not keeping with the traditions of fair British justice that a convicted criminal who has paid their debt by serving their sentence or paying their fine is then given extra punishment.

In the case of Mr Larner, these rules seem even more absurd.

There can be no condoning the two criminal convictions he’s had, but he’s served his time and deserves much better after bravely standing up to terrorists two years ago.

If we are really to be a society where we have a fair criminal justice system, then we should not be punishing those people who have already served their time.