R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE RICHARDSON [1996] CLY 1447
FACTS:-
The Applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of the CICB refusing him compensation for injuries inflicted upon him when he was three years old. The grounds for refusal were that the injuries were inflicted by the Applicant’s mother’s cohabitant, and therefore such a claim was excluded by paragraph 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1969. This paragraph excluded injuries sustained when the victim and offender were living together as members of the same family. It was argued that Paragraph 7 should be interpreted as relating to victims and offenders who had a legal or blood relationship. The Applicant applied for judicial review.
HELD:-
Mr Justice Macpherson dismissed the application on the grounds that paragraph 7 of the Scheme stated that cohabitants should be treated as if married to one another. That meant that R was a child of that family and the CICB had not erred in their decision.
FACTS:-
The Applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of the CICB refusing him compensation for injuries inflicted upon him when he was three years old. The grounds for refusal were that the injuries were inflicted by the Applicant’s mother’s cohabitant, and therefore such a claim was excluded by paragraph 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1969. This paragraph excluded injuries sustained when the victim and offender were living together as members of the same family. It was argued that Paragraph 7 should be interpreted as relating to victims and offenders who had a legal or blood relationship. The Applicant applied for judicial review.
HELD:-
Mr Justice Macpherson dismissed the application on the grounds that paragraph 7 of the Scheme stated that cohabitants should be treated as if married to one another. That meant that R was a child of that family and the CICB had not erred in their decision.