JONES V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY [2011] EWCA Civ 400
FACTS:-
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. Mr Jones appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal.
JUDGMENT:-
Lord Justice Patten considered the relevant sections of the 1988 and the 1861 Act. He also quoted from a case called R v Savage [1992] 1 AC 699 where it was said that no specific intent was required to commit a crime under Section 20 of the 1861 Act. A similar decision was made in R v Burstow [1998] AC 147. Patten LJ also referred to the case of R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb [1987] 1 QB 74. This was concerned with a suicide in front of a train. In that case the Court of Appeal held that the term “crime of violence” had to be construed as the ordinary man would construe it. It was undoubtedly a question of fact.
It was common ground that the suicide had the necessary actus reus. The approach of the First Tier Tribunal had not been consistent. There was another case in May 2010 before the FTT “Fuller” where on near identical facts compensation had been awarded.
Patten LJ said that most reasonable people would conclude that this was a crime of violence. Whatever the suicide’s primary motive, it was likely that some harm was foreseen. The FTT had not had any evidence of the suicide’s actual motive before them other than what the investigating police officer had said before the FTT, and he was not qualified to address that question. Therefore their decision involved an error of law both in terms of the directions given on the test to be applied and in relation to their finding that there was no evidence from which foresight of some harm on the part of the suicide could be inferred. The matter would remitted back to a differently constituted FTT to reconsider the issue of recklessness in the light of this judgment.
FACTS:-
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. Mr Jones appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal.
JUDGMENT:-
Lord Justice Patten considered the relevant sections of the 1988 and the 1861 Act. He also quoted from a case called R v Savage [1992] 1 AC 699 where it was said that no specific intent was required to commit a crime under Section 20 of the 1861 Act. A similar decision was made in R v Burstow [1998] AC 147. Patten LJ also referred to the case of R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb [1987] 1 QB 74. This was concerned with a suicide in front of a train. In that case the Court of Appeal held that the term “crime of violence” had to be construed as the ordinary man would construe it. It was undoubtedly a question of fact.
It was common ground that the suicide had the necessary actus reus. The approach of the First Tier Tribunal had not been consistent. There was another case in May 2010 before the FTT “Fuller” where on near identical facts compensation had been awarded.
Patten LJ said that most reasonable people would conclude that this was a crime of violence. Whatever the suicide’s primary motive, it was likely that some harm was foreseen. The FTT had not had any evidence of the suicide’s actual motive before them other than what the investigating police officer had said before the FTT, and he was not qualified to address that question. Therefore their decision involved an error of law both in terms of the directions given on the test to be applied and in relation to their finding that there was no evidence from which foresight of some harm on the part of the suicide could be inferred. The matter would remitted back to a differently constituted FTT to reconsider the issue of recklessness in the light of this judgment.