R (ON THE APPLICATION OF M) V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD [2004] EWHC 1701
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant was born in March 1971. In January 1972 he was taken into care by the London Borough of Islington and in 1973 placed with foster parents, Mr and Mrs H. In March 1974, he was taken to hospital by Mr and Mrs H. A few months afterwards in March 1974, he was taken to hospital by Mr and Mrs H. He was unconscious and suffered from a subarachnoid haemorrhage. Medical opinion was that this was a non accidental injury.
In October 2000, the Applicant appeared unrepresented before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and received an award of £100,000. Thereafter solicitors applied to have his award set aside because they considered that the award was insufficient. The award was set aside, but the CICB Appeal Board now took up the issue of eligibility. The injury had come from a person or persons with whom the Applicant was living as a member of his own family.
Paragraph 7 of the 1969 Scheme provided:-
“Where the victims who suffered injuries and the offender who inflicted them were living together at the time as members of the same family, no compensation will be payable. For the purposes of this paragraph where a man and a woman were living together as man and wife they will be treated as if they were married to one another.”
HELD:-
Justice Newman considered Sections 12 to 14 of the Children Act 1948, which provided for children to be taken into care, and also the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955 (SI 1955 No. 1377).
The reason for paragraph 7 was the difficulty in establishing the facts and ensuring that the compensation did not benefit the offender.
Newman J also referred to the case of R (on the application of Staten) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [1972] 1 All ER 1034 where a husband and wife were held to be living together as members of the same family, even though they did not sleep together, had no sexual relations and she did not clean or cook for the husband.
In another case, R (on the application of Darren Paul Richardson) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 11th March 1996 there was an unmarried couple with a young child of the woman who was injured by the male partner. Again the couple were to be regarded as man and wife.
The question for the court was to determine whether there was any sufficient proximity coming close to rendering the Claimant a member of the same family.” Principally this was a question of fact to be determined in the legal context involved. The starting point was that the Applicant was there to live as a member of the family. That was the essence of the Boarding Out provisions.
Consequently the decision of the Appeal Board of the CICB had to be upheld.
However there was another case where there had been a human rights challenge to this exclusionary rule. The only proper course was to adjourn the issue of the Human Rights Act 1998 until this other case was decided.
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant was born in March 1971. In January 1972 he was taken into care by the London Borough of Islington and in 1973 placed with foster parents, Mr and Mrs H. In March 1974, he was taken to hospital by Mr and Mrs H. A few months afterwards in March 1974, he was taken to hospital by Mr and Mrs H. He was unconscious and suffered from a subarachnoid haemorrhage. Medical opinion was that this was a non accidental injury.
In October 2000, the Applicant appeared unrepresented before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and received an award of £100,000. Thereafter solicitors applied to have his award set aside because they considered that the award was insufficient. The award was set aside, but the CICB Appeal Board now took up the issue of eligibility. The injury had come from a person or persons with whom the Applicant was living as a member of his own family.
Paragraph 7 of the 1969 Scheme provided:-
“Where the victims who suffered injuries and the offender who inflicted them were living together at the time as members of the same family, no compensation will be payable. For the purposes of this paragraph where a man and a woman were living together as man and wife they will be treated as if they were married to one another.”
HELD:-
Justice Newman considered Sections 12 to 14 of the Children Act 1948, which provided for children to be taken into care, and also the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955 (SI 1955 No. 1377).
The reason for paragraph 7 was the difficulty in establishing the facts and ensuring that the compensation did not benefit the offender.
Newman J also referred to the case of R (on the application of Staten) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [1972] 1 All ER 1034 where a husband and wife were held to be living together as members of the same family, even though they did not sleep together, had no sexual relations and she did not clean or cook for the husband.
In another case, R (on the application of Darren Paul Richardson) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 11th March 1996 there was an unmarried couple with a young child of the woman who was injured by the male partner. Again the couple were to be regarded as man and wife.
The question for the court was to determine whether there was any sufficient proximity coming close to rendering the Claimant a member of the same family.” Principally this was a question of fact to be determined in the legal context involved. The starting point was that the Applicant was there to live as a member of the family. That was the essence of the Boarding Out provisions.
Consequently the decision of the Appeal Board of the CICB had to be upheld.
However there was another case where there had been a human rights challenge to this exclusionary rule. The only proper course was to adjourn the issue of the Human Rights Act 1998 until this other case was decided.