R (BD) V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL [2013] UKUT 332
Child abuse website – CICA – Disclosure of civil claim to CICA
FACTS:-
The Claimant was a former bus driver who was assaulted on his bus in 2008 by two would-be passengers. He awarded £1,500 by the CICA in respect minor disfigurement through facial scarring. His case was that the award should have taken into account psychological problems that had developed since the assault. On appeal, the First-tier Tribunal discovered that he was pursuing a claim for damages in civil proceedings against his former employer. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and directed the claimant to disclose all documents relating to the civil claim or, if no civil claim was being pursued or extant he was to confirm that in writing and he was to comply with the direction within three months. The Claimant did not comply with the directions and his claim was struck out. He then submitted a written request for the reinstatement of his appeal, which was refused and so he applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission to apply for judicial review. At that point, it transpired that his civil claim had been struck out and his solicitors acting for him in the civil claim had obtained an unfavourable medical report. Permission was granted to him to apply for judicial review.
JUDGEMENT:-
Judge Rowland considered Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2685) which enabled proceedings to be struck out for non compliance with directions. Paragraph 48(1)(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008 provided that an award would be reduced by the full value of any payment in respect of the same injury which the applicant had received as a result of an order by a civil court for the payment of damages and paragraph 48(3) expressly provided that a claims officer could decline to process an application for criminal injuries compensation until the details of a claim for damages had been provided. Rowland J was quite satisfied that, on the evidence before it, the First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to reinstate the appeal and, since the possibility of making another application for reinstatement meant that the decision was not irrevocable, this was not a case where it was necessary to consider whether any misunderstanding rendered the decision wrong in law. He would therefore dismiss the application for judicial review. However it was now open to the Claimant to make a further application for reinstatement of his appeal.
Rowland J considered another issue. The judge below had said that the decision in the case was made in private pursuant to Rule 30(2) of the Tribunal Rules. As a consequence his written statement of reasons was confidential to the parties and those advising them. The First-tier Tribunal was not a Court of Record; any dissemination of these reasons to a third party was a contempt of court. Rowland J disagreed with that view. It was clear that dissemination of the reasons for the decision was nonetheless not a contempt of court in the absence of any order under rule 14(1) of the Rules prohibiting the disclosure or publication of information relating to the proceedings. The judge’s statement to the contrary is wholly inconsistent with section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, which stated that the publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private was not of itself contempt of court except in specified cases relating to children, mental patients, national security, secrecy and a prohibition by the court.
Child abuse website – CICA – Disclosure of civil claim to CICA
FACTS:-
The Claimant was a former bus driver who was assaulted on his bus in 2008 by two would-be passengers. He awarded £1,500 by the CICA in respect minor disfigurement through facial scarring. His case was that the award should have taken into account psychological problems that had developed since the assault. On appeal, the First-tier Tribunal discovered that he was pursuing a claim for damages in civil proceedings against his former employer. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and directed the claimant to disclose all documents relating to the civil claim or, if no civil claim was being pursued or extant he was to confirm that in writing and he was to comply with the direction within three months. The Claimant did not comply with the directions and his claim was struck out. He then submitted a written request for the reinstatement of his appeal, which was refused and so he applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission to apply for judicial review. At that point, it transpired that his civil claim had been struck out and his solicitors acting for him in the civil claim had obtained an unfavourable medical report. Permission was granted to him to apply for judicial review.
JUDGEMENT:-
Judge Rowland considered Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2685) which enabled proceedings to be struck out for non compliance with directions. Paragraph 48(1)(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008 provided that an award would be reduced by the full value of any payment in respect of the same injury which the applicant had received as a result of an order by a civil court for the payment of damages and paragraph 48(3) expressly provided that a claims officer could decline to process an application for criminal injuries compensation until the details of a claim for damages had been provided. Rowland J was quite satisfied that, on the evidence before it, the First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to reinstate the appeal and, since the possibility of making another application for reinstatement meant that the decision was not irrevocable, this was not a case where it was necessary to consider whether any misunderstanding rendered the decision wrong in law. He would therefore dismiss the application for judicial review. However it was now open to the Claimant to make a further application for reinstatement of his appeal.
Rowland J considered another issue. The judge below had said that the decision in the case was made in private pursuant to Rule 30(2) of the Tribunal Rules. As a consequence his written statement of reasons was confidential to the parties and those advising them. The First-tier Tribunal was not a Court of Record; any dissemination of these reasons to a third party was a contempt of court. Rowland J disagreed with that view. It was clear that dissemination of the reasons for the decision was nonetheless not a contempt of court in the absence of any order under rule 14(1) of the Rules prohibiting the disclosure or publication of information relating to the proceedings. The judge’s statement to the contrary is wholly inconsistent with section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, which stated that the publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private was not of itself contempt of court except in specified cases relating to children, mental patients, national security, secrecy and a prohibition by the court.