Two children who were subject to depraved incest abuse and forced to eat off floor to sue for £238 MILLION

TWO children subjected to incest, neglect and forced to eat off the kitchen floor are set to sue the Health Minister in Jersey for £238 MILLION.

The siblings, referred to as Plaintiff Two and Plaintiff Three, were highly sexualised and lacked basic life skills such as knowing how to wash, a court was told.

They say they will never recover from the horrific abuse they sustained while living in the family home.

Plaintiff Two, who is currently sectioned in a UK facility, and Plaintiff Three, who lives in a 'highly supported' environment, are now suing for a staggering £238 million.

The siblings are seeking £121 million and £117 million respectively.

The Health Minister has accepted that the pair should have been placed into care sooner, but disputes the amount in damages the plaintiffs are seeking and instead believes a total of £14.5 million should be awarded, and is offering Plaintiff Two £10.289 million and Plaintiff Three £4.25 million.

Giving evidence at the Jersey Royal Court, consultant clinical psychologist Dr Miriam Silver describes it as one of the most striking and complex cases she has ever dealt with.

She said that Plaintiff Two killed a cat in the family home, adding that research showed that 'very distressed' children were cruel to animals, and later described her evaluation of Plaintiff Three as one of her "most disturbed assessments".

Dr Silver said there was evidence of "long-standing and chronic neglect of the children", as well as "examples of emotionally abusive parenting". She added that the siblings were "very sexualised", aggressive in their play and lacked empathy towards other children.

She added: "Some of the examples I picked out of emotional harm were particularly the mother referring to the children as muck. Her talking about suicide. Her showing self-harm in their presence, exposing them to violent materials and appearing to be generally uninterested by their needs.

"She would respond to their needs with smacking and criticism. There was a poor relationship with food - not feeding them regularly and appropriately. There were descriptions of the children eating from the kitchen floor."

She added: "I believe I said at the time they were in the top five children I had seen in terms of the severity and complexity of their needs, which is still the case."

Dr Silver told the court that during her assessment she gave Plaintiff Three dolls to act out stories of family life.

She added: "It is a horrifying level of insight into what was going on in this family. (Plaintiff Three) kept playing out repeatedly lots of different variants of incest and sadistic cruelty.

"It was a really disturbing experience. It stood out as one of my most disturbed assessments. That would still continue to be the case."

The court heard that Attorney General Robert MacRae has now written to the lawyers for the plaintiffs and defence to find out whether a Periodic Payment Order (PPO) - an order that has never before been used in Jersey and allocates damages payments in set intervals rather than in a lump sum - could be considered.

It is not known whether the Royal Court has the power to impose such an order.

However, Advocate MacRae's potential intervention was fiercely criticised by Advocate David Benest, the siblings' legal counsel, who told the court that the Attorney General had thrown a "missile", disrupting the case and added that he "should not poke his nose in where it is not wanted or needed".

At the beginning of the trial, both the defence and the plaintiffs' counsels said they wanted a lump sum to be awarded.

However, on Wednesday, defence counsel Advocate Lee Ingram told the court that a PPO was a "live issue", as there was now "greater certainty" about what care the siblings would require in the future.

Commissioner Pamela Scriven QC, who is presiding over the trial, has now asked Advocate MacRae to apply to the Royal Court within seven days if he intends to intervene in the case.

Advocate Benest, who said he opposed the defence seeking a PPO, argued there was no certainty about the care the plaintiffs would need in the future, and questioned whether it was right for Advocate MacRae to argue whether the court had the power to impose a PPO during the trial and also questioned the timing of the letter.

However, Advocate Lee Ingram strongly denied any suggestion that the defence team had spoken to Advocate MacRae before the letter was sent.

The trial continues.

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368 . You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.