HW V FTT & CICA [2010] UKUT 199
FACTS:-
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. They said that the situation was in fact well managed by the Applicant’s colleagues. There was no express threat of violence and no actual physical violence occurred.
In the second case (Bishop) the Applicant was a taxi driver who was falsely accused on raping a passenger, who was later convicted of perverting the course of justice. As a result of the allegations, and his arrest by the police he feared reprisals and was distressed. His application was refused by the CICA on the grounds that the Applicant’s false allegations did not amount to a crime of violence. He appealed to the FTT who allowed his appeal.
In the third case (Jones), 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. Mr Jones’ counsel submitted that the suicide had committed an offence under Section 22A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (interfering with a motor vehicle) and Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, grievous bodily harm. Mr Jones appealed to the First Tier Tribunal but they affirmed the Authority’s decision and said that suicide per se was not a crime.
JUDGMENT:-
Mr Justice Nicol considered the history of the CICA Scheme and the meaning of “criminal injury”. In relation to the case of Withey, there was a subjective element to Paragraph 9(a) – was the Applicant in fear of immediate physical violence? – and an objective element – was such a fear reasonable? The FTT had answered that question perfectly properly. Whilst there might have been a misunderstanding as to the overlap with the crime of assault, that made no difference. The application would be dismissed.
In relation to Bishop, Nicol J agreed with the CICA. When arrested Mr Bishop was in the company of police officers, and could not have reasonably feared reprisals or violence at that time. The violence that he feared was not immediate. Peverting the course of justice could not be seen as a crime of violence. That was not the nature of the offence, nor could this offence be seen as a sexual one for the purposes of Paragraph 9(c) of the Scheme. The decision of the FTT would be quashed.
In relation to the third case (Jones),there could be no doubt that the suicide’s actions were careless as to the safety of other road users, but a conclusion of recklessness depended on the FTT finding that he actually foresaw that his behaviour might cause physical harm, and there was no evidence of that. The conduct of the suicide had not contained a degree of hostile intent.
FACTS:-
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. They said that the situation was in fact well managed by the Applicant’s colleagues. There was no express threat of violence and no actual physical violence occurred.
In the second case (Bishop) the Applicant was a taxi driver who was falsely accused on raping a passenger, who was later convicted of perverting the course of justice. As a result of the allegations, and his arrest by the police he feared reprisals and was distressed. His application was refused by the CICA on the grounds that the Applicant’s false allegations did not amount to a crime of violence. He appealed to the FTT who allowed his appeal.
In the third case (Jones), 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. Mr Jones’ counsel submitted that the suicide had committed an offence under Section 22A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (interfering with a motor vehicle) and Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, grievous bodily harm. Mr Jones appealed to the First Tier Tribunal but they affirmed the Authority’s decision and said that suicide per se was not a crime.
JUDGMENT:-
Mr Justice Nicol considered the history of the CICA Scheme and the meaning of “criminal injury”. In relation to the case of Withey, there was a subjective element to Paragraph 9(a) – was the Applicant in fear of immediate physical violence? – and an objective element – was such a fear reasonable? The FTT had answered that question perfectly properly. Whilst there might have been a misunderstanding as to the overlap with the crime of assault, that made no difference. The application would be dismissed.
In relation to Bishop, Nicol J agreed with the CICA. When arrested Mr Bishop was in the company of police officers, and could not have reasonably feared reprisals or violence at that time. The violence that he feared was not immediate. Peverting the course of justice could not be seen as a crime of violence. That was not the nature of the offence, nor could this offence be seen as a sexual one for the purposes of Paragraph 9(c) of the Scheme. The decision of the FTT would be quashed.
In relation to the third case (Jones),there could be no doubt that the suicide’s actions were careless as to the safety of other road users, but a conclusion of recklessness depended on the FTT finding that he actually foresaw that his behaviour might cause physical harm, and there was no evidence of that. The conduct of the suicide had not contained a degree of hostile intent.