CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND CP [2014] EWCA 1554 Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (British Pregnancy Advisory Services and Others intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 1554
On a judicial review of the CICA's refusal to grant compensation, the matter came before the Court of Appeal in Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (British Pregnancy Advisory Services and Others intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 1554. The Court of Appeal declined to say that the children could be brought within the terms of the CICA because the relevant ‘crime of violence’, ie excessive ingestion of alcohol could not be brought within the terms of s 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The foetus was not ‘any other person’ within the meaning of s 23.
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND CP [2014] EWCA 1554 CP was born in 2007. During her mother’s pregnancy, the mother consumed grossly excessive quantities of alcohol. She had using drugs (presumably unlawfully taking non-prescription, recreational drugs but stopped doing this during her pregnancy and also reduced her consumption of alcohol. She did engage with maternity services and saw her GP, a midwife, a health visitor and a social worker (with whom she discussed the dangers of alcohol consumption on at least two occasions) and was referred to an alcohol counselling project. Full report here.
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND TS [2014] EWCA Civ 65 On 15th August 2002, TS, a 14 year old was riding his bicycle along the pavement of a quiet residential street near his home when a small dog, which had escaped from its owner's garden, rushed up to him barking in an aggressive manner. TS instinctively swerved away from the dog on to the road and into the path of a car. He was seriously injured. The owner of the dog was well aware that it was aggressive towards strangers (although it had apparently never bitten anyone) and had in the past frightened them by barking at them. She was also aware that it would do its best to escape from the garden where it was normally confined. Proceedings were taken against her under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but the prosecution was discontinued after she relinquished ownership of the dog. Full report here.
JONES V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY [2013] UKSC 19 The Applicant was a lorry driver who suffered a catastrophic accident in January 2005, after a man ran into the middle of the road, causing another vehicle to swerve into him. An inquest found that the man’s intention was to commit suicide. In May 2007, the Applicant made an application to the CICA through his mother under the 2001 Scheme. His application was refused because the CICA took the view that the Applicant was not the victim of a criminal injury for the purposes of the Scheme. Full report here.
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND CP [2013] UKUT 638 (AAC) (18 December 2013) CP was born in 2007. During her mother’s pregnancy, the mother consumed grossly excessive quantities of alcohol. She had using drugs (presumably unlawfully taking non-prescription, recreational drugs but stopped doing this during her pregnancy and also reduced her consumption of alcohol. She did engage with maternity services and saw her GP, a midwife, a health visitor and a social worker (with whom she discussed the dangers of alcohol consumption on at least two occasions) and was referred to an alcohol counselling project. Full report here.
CICA v CICP/FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND TS [2012] UKUT 444 (AAC) The Applicant was a 14 year old attacked by a dog on his bike. He cycled to avoid it into the road and was struck by a car, the driver of which was quite blameless. The dog owner had no funds to satisfy any judgment. The Applicant suffered serious injuries and his claim was assessed by the First-tier Tribunal at £115,280. The dog owner gave evidence that the dog was generally aggressive towards people and had scared people by barking at them but there was no evidence that the dog’s activities had previously come to the attention of the police. The dog owner was prosecuted in respect of the incident but the prosecution was discontinued. Full report here.
JONES V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY [2011] EWCA Civ 400 The Applicant was a lorry driver who suffered a catastrophic accident in January 2005, after a man ran into the middle of the road, causing another vehicle to swerve into him. An inquest found that the man’s intention was to commit suicide. In May 2007, the Applicant made an application to the CICA through his mother under the 2001 Scheme. His application was refused because the CICA took the view that the Applicant was not the victim of a criminal injury for the purposes of the Scheme. Although the man who caused the accident intended to commit suicide, he did not deliberately intend any harm to the users of the road. Full report here.
R(GI) V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (CIC) [2011] UKUT 83 The Applicant was a child (G), whose father submitted a claim on her behalf to the ICA in January 2008. His application came under the CICA Scheme 2001. The incident arose when her friend’s sister (N) poured boiling hot water over her in a paddling pool. G was nine and N was ten. The CICA rejected the application on the grounds that this was an accident not a crime of violence. G’s father appealed to the First Tier Tribunal who confirmed the CICA’s decision. He then applied for judicial review. Full report here.
HW V FTT & CICA [2010] UKUT 199 These were three linked appeals to the Upper Tribunal. In the first case (Withey), the Applicant was an officer with British Transport Police, who was approached by a mentally disturbed man with a concealed knife and who suffered post traumatic stress disorder. He was restrained by colleagues. Her application was turned down by the Authority and again on appeal to the First Tier Tribunal because the FTT did not accept that Paragraph 9(a) of the Scheme was satisfied, insofar as the Applicant was not put in reasonable fear of immediate physical harm to her person. Full report here.
L.C V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD 1999 Times 3 June The issue in this case was whether a person who had been the victim of incidents involving indecent exposure and who sought compensation from the CICB might be refused on the grounds that the events that had taken place could not properly be described as crimes of violence. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE INCE UNREPORTED COURT OF APPEAL 20th JULY 1973 A policeman answering a call to the effect that men were trying to break into Territorial Army barracks in Bloomsbury, drove through red traffic lights. He collided with another police car and was killed. Apparently there was no attempted break in at the barracks at all.The policeman’s widow brought a claim to the CICB but this was rejected. She judicial reviewed this decision and her case came before the Court of Appeal. Full report here.