The reform of the rule is now required as the government has conceded the Legal Service Agency’s client’s case at the Supreme Court.

The LSA acts for Monica Allan, whose mother twice assaulted her when she was a very young child in the early 1970s. On each occasion she was prosecuted for attempted murder.

Ms Allan claimed criminal injuries compensation but because of the “same roof” rule, she was not eligible to receive compensation, even though non-family members would have been. The rule means that members of the same family living together pre-October 1979 are not eligible for compensation no matter how serious the abuse or injury.

The UK government has formally agreed that the human rights arguments made in all three of the UK’s legal jurisdictions are correct and that the “same roof” rule cannot prevent otherwise eligible victims receiving compensation. Ms Allan, and others in her situation, will, therefore, be able to proceed with a criminal injuries compensation application.

Kirsti Nelson, one of Monica Allan’s legal team, said: “This is a major victory for our client, which paves the way for justice for many others.

“The strength of the human rights law gives real teeth to campaigners who will seek to engage with the government’s full review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

“The government will hopefully remove the injustice of the “same roof” rule in a way that compensates everybody affected, whether they have never applied or applied and been rejected in the past.”

Ms Allan said: “My lawyers and I have been battling for this since 2012. Even though the law is now sorted, we will still have to fight for actual compensation. I am, however, very grateful to my legal team of Jonathan Mitchell QC, Lesley Irvine, advocate, and solicitors Kirsti Nelson, Paul Brown and Laura McDonagh.”

Paul Brown, principal solicitor at Legal Services Agency, said: “We have been researching this issue for at least 15 years. It is great that developments in human rights law can make such a big difference to the rights of victims of crimes. This case has major implications for victims of many different crimes of violence.”