CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL – IRENE LAMB [2010] EWCA Civ 1433
FACTS:-
This was a judicial review case. The Applicant (Irene Lamb) had been assaulted in around 1998 by three people after a dispute over car parking. She was awarded £2500 by the CICA for an injured back, but made no claim for any disabling mental disorder.
In July 2006, the Applicant applied to the CICA to re-open her claim, stating that her psychiatric condition had progressively deteriorated as had her back. That application was refused and the CICAP upheld the decision. She applied for judicial review of the decision of the CICAP, and the court at first instance quashed the decision of the CICAP in relation to the psychiatric condition, but not the back pain. The trial judge ordered the CICA to re-open the decision.
The trial judge had found that it did not seem likely, given the amount and description of the award which was made, that there was evidence which suggested any form of psychiatric injury. The Applicant said that the psychiatric symptoms had appeared some time after the original award had been made, and there was some support for that in the medical records. The CICA appealed to the Court of Appeal.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Justice Hooper went over the history of the case and the evidence of psychiatric damage. He also considered Paragraph 56 and 57 of the CICA Scheme.
“56. A decision made by a claims officer and accepted by the applicant, or a decision made by the Panel, will normally be regarded as final. The claims officer may, however, subsequently re-open a case where there has been such a material change in the victim’s medical condition that injustice would occur if the original assessment of compensation were allowed to stand, or where he has since died in consequence of the injury.
57. A case will not be re-opened more than two years after the date of the final decision unless the claims officer is satisfied, on the basis of evidence presented in support of the application to re-open the case, that the renewed application can be considered without a need for further extensive enquiries.”
The CICA had criticized the trial judge for not applying the proper test in judicial review, but in the view of the Court of Appeal it was clear that he was applying the proper test. He asked himself whether the finding of the Adjudicator was perverse and concluded that it was. In the view of the Court of Appeal there were three questions that the CICAP Adjudicator should have asked, insofar as paragraph 56 of the CICA Scheme was concerned.
There was no doubt that the Applicant was suffering from psychiatric symptoms, and that these were caused by the assault. In relation to the third question, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that she was not suffering from the kind of psychiatric symptoms at the time of award that she now suffered. That conclusion was amply support by the fact that the Applicant told the CICA that her condition had worsened and had progressively deteriorated.
In relation to paragraph 57 of the Scheme, there was no need for further extensive enquiries on the evidence presented by the Applicant.
FACTS:-
This was a judicial review case. The Applicant (Irene Lamb) had been assaulted in around 1998 by three people after a dispute over car parking. She was awarded £2500 by the CICA for an injured back, but made no claim for any disabling mental disorder.
In July 2006, the Applicant applied to the CICA to re-open her claim, stating that her psychiatric condition had progressively deteriorated as had her back. That application was refused and the CICAP upheld the decision. She applied for judicial review of the decision of the CICAP, and the court at first instance quashed the decision of the CICAP in relation to the psychiatric condition, but not the back pain. The trial judge ordered the CICA to re-open the decision.
The trial judge had found that it did not seem likely, given the amount and description of the award which was made, that there was evidence which suggested any form of psychiatric injury. The Applicant said that the psychiatric symptoms had appeared some time after the original award had been made, and there was some support for that in the medical records. The CICA appealed to the Court of Appeal.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Justice Hooper went over the history of the case and the evidence of psychiatric damage. He also considered Paragraph 56 and 57 of the CICA Scheme.
“56. A decision made by a claims officer and accepted by the applicant, or a decision made by the Panel, will normally be regarded as final. The claims officer may, however, subsequently re-open a case where there has been such a material change in the victim’s medical condition that injustice would occur if the original assessment of compensation were allowed to stand, or where he has since died in consequence of the injury.
57. A case will not be re-opened more than two years after the date of the final decision unless the claims officer is satisfied, on the basis of evidence presented in support of the application to re-open the case, that the renewed application can be considered without a need for further extensive enquiries.”
The CICA had criticized the trial judge for not applying the proper test in judicial review, but in the view of the Court of Appeal it was clear that he was applying the proper test. He asked himself whether the finding of the Adjudicator was perverse and concluded that it was. In the view of the Court of Appeal there were three questions that the CICAP Adjudicator should have asked, insofar as paragraph 56 of the CICA Scheme was concerned.
- What was the Applicant’s current psychiatric condition?
- Was that condition directly attributable to the assault?
- Had there been a material change in her psychiatric condition since the hearing in March 1999?
There was no doubt that the Applicant was suffering from psychiatric symptoms, and that these were caused by the assault. In relation to the third question, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that she was not suffering from the kind of psychiatric symptoms at the time of award that she now suffered. That conclusion was amply support by the fact that the Applicant told the CICA that her condition had worsened and had progressively deteriorated.
In relation to paragraph 57 of the Scheme, there was no need for further extensive enquiries on the evidence presented by the Applicant.