R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION APPEAL PANEL ON THE APPLICATION OF CD AND JM [2004] EWHC 1674 (Admin)

Both CD and JM had applied to the CICA, but their claims had been rejected ultimately by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel on the grounds that they were not victims of a crime of violence. CD had been born on the 27th August 1983 claimed that she had been subjected to unlawful sexual intercourse by RW who was 21. On the 17th August 1996, according to her account she had gone with friends and RW to some woods. She was given alcohol and then went away from her friends with RW.    Full case report here.


R (ON THE APPLICATION OF JE) v CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL [2003] EWCA Civ 234
 
The Applicant was refused compensation because the Criminal Injuries Appeals Panel decided that he had consent to the sexual activities on which his application was based. It was common ground that he was a “defective” who could not give consent under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. A “defective” under the 1956 Act was described as “a person suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning.”  Full case report here.


REGINA (AUGUST) VERSUS CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL & 
REGINA (BROWN) VERSUS CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL [2001] QB 774
 
At the age of 13 the applicant in the first case, Mr August committed consensual buggery as the active partner with a 53 years old man who was subsequently convicted of sex offences. Mr August had met a man called Crow in some public lavatories at the age of 13 or 14. Crow was aged 53. Mr August had gone to the toilets expecting to be paid for having sex with men. Crow was eventually convicted of three offences, the first of which was an offence of buggery, which took the form of August penetrating Crow. The second was gross indecency, which took the form of Crow and August mutually committing fellatio on each other. The third was an offence of taking indecent photographs of August. Mr August made application to the CICB, but the panel concluded having heard evidence from both Crow and August, that the crimes of which Crow had been convicted had not been crimes of violence. Full case report here.

R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE PIERCY [1997] EWHC Admin 359 

The Applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of the CICB refusing her compensation for sexual abuse inflicted upon her when she was twelve years old by a nineteen year old man. He had pleaded not guilty. The CICB felt that she had consented to intercourse.   Full case report here.


Contact Us

    Subscribe to Updates Today!

The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed.  In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so.  It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such.   To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material.    Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.