Survivors of convicted serial sex offender Thomas McKenna have denounced a Stormont department’s proposal to recover legal expenses from the perpetrator’s seized assets, describing the move as a “thump in the jaw” that further penalises those already scarred by his crimes.
Background to the dispute
Thomas McKenna, whose convictions span more than a dozen sexual offences against children and vulnerable adults, was sentenced in 2023 to a lengthy custodial term. Following his conviction, the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Department of Finance began a process to liquidate assets identified as proceeds of his criminal activity. The proceeds were intended to fund the victims’ compensation scheme and to cover the substantial legal costs incurred by the state in prosecuting the case.
Victims’ objections
A coalition of McKenna’s survivors, represented by the advocacy group Victims United, argues that the government’s claim on the offender’s assets effectively extracts money from the victims themselves. “We have already endured unimaginable trauma,” said Sarah O’Neill, a spokesperson for the group. “To tell us that the state will dip into the compensation fund to pay its own legal bills feels like a second assault – a literal thump in the jaw.”
The victims contend that the assets earmarked for compensation should remain untouched, emphasizing that the state’s legal costs are a matter of public expenditure and should be funded from general taxation, not from a fund meant to redress their suffering.
Government’s position
Officials from the DoJ acknowledge the concerns but maintain that the legal costs are a direct consequence of the prosecution and must be accounted for. “The assets recovered from Mr McKenna are part of a broader restitution framework,” a department spokesperson said. “It is standard practice to allocate a portion of seized proceeds to cover the extraordinary costs associated with complex sexual abuse cases.”
The Department of Finance added that the total legal expenditure exceeds £2 million, a figure that, in their view, justifies a proportional claim against the offender’s estate.
Legal and policy implications
The controversy raises questions about the balance between state responsibility and victim compensation in high‑profile abuse cases. Legal experts note that while the Crown can seek restitution from a convicted offender’s assets, the prioritisation of those funds—whether for victim compensation or state costs—varies across jurisdictions.
Professor Eileen Murphy, a specialist in criminal restitution law, explained: “There is no absolute rule that forces the state to absorb all legal costs. However, best practice dictates that victims’ compensation should be protected as a primary claim, with any residual assets available for other uses.”
Next steps
The dispute is expected to be examined by the Court of Appeal, where the victims hope for a ruling that safeguards the compensation fund. In the meantime, the survivors continue to call for a transparent review of the restitution process and for the government to fund its legal expenses without diminishing the victims’ entitlement.
As the case proceeds, the broader conversation about how societies financially support victims of sexual abuse while holding offenders accountable remains at the forefront of public policy debates across the United Kingdom.
