R. (JC) V FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL(CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION: REASONS) [2010] UKUT 396 (AAC) (03 November 2010)
Duty to give reasons for decision
FACTS:-
In June 2003 the Applicant was employed by Network Rail. In February 2006 she made a claim for compensation from CICA under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 alleging that she was lured to a room at her place of work, was physically held there against her will by three senior employees with a fourth acting as sentry outside the door, and while in the room was subjected to physical assaults and to mental torment including verbal sexual abuse. This incident was immediately followed by criminal intimidation and harassment. She was diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and was given medication. Her application was rejected by the CICA on two grounds. The CICA said that there was unreasonable delay in reporting the incident to the police and there was not enough evidence to support the claim. She sought a review and the reviewing officer asserted that the evidence showed unreasonable delay, but at the same time accepted that delay in reporting may have been due to the Applicant requiring psychological treatment during the interval. As regards the second ground of rejection the reviewing officer said, among other things, that Ms JC’s account was uncorroborated, that there was no evidence to prefer charges, and that “I cannot be satisfied, even on the balance of probabilities, as to the full circumstances surrounding this incident.” She appealed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, but they dismissed the appeal on the delay point and also on the sufficient evidence. The Applicant applied for permission to judicially review that decision, and in a “rolled up” hearing the Upper Tribunal judge dealt with the application for permission and the judicial review itself.
JUDGMENT:-
Mr Justice Walker said that a convenient summary of relevant principles when a Tribunal came to give reasons could be found in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Upper Tribunal in BB v South London & Maudsley NHS Trust [2009] UKUT 157 (AAC). The legal test was fully discussed in the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and R(H) v. Ashworth Hospital Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 923, [2002] MHLR 314, adopting what was said in English v. Emery Reimbold & Strick Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 1 WLR 2409.
The essential requirement was that what the Tribunal said should enable the parties and any appellate tribunal readily to analyse the reasoning that was essential to the decision. The Tribunal should provide an explanation as to why it had accepted the evidence of one expert and rejected that of another. As these cases made clear, the test was the same regardless of subject matter.
Judge Walker dealt with the Tribunal’s reasoning and found that it did not grapple with salient parts of the Applicant’s notice of appeal. She had explained what she did from June to December 2003, the difficulties she encountered in doing those things, and the state she was in. The Panel’s written reasons were silent on whether any of the things she said in these respects were accepted by the Panel, and if accepted whether the Panel considered that they nevertheless did not give a reasonable explanation for not reporting to the police at that time – and if so why not.
In relation to the sufficiency of the evidence, the Applicant had to show that she had
sustained a criminal injury directly attributable to a crime of violence. Here too the written reasons did not grapple with salient parts of the Applicant’s notice of appeal, and did not deal with crucial evidence that she had submitted. .
Walker J recognised that the Panel were faced with a very long and discursive written account from the Applicant. He had asked himself whether an omission to deal with a particular matter might reflect failure on the Applicant’s part to rely upon that matter at the hearing. He did not think that was the case. First, he had seen notes of the hearing which suggested that the most of the points identified above were relied upon orally. Second, when dealing with an unrepresented appellant, especially one who had been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD, he was sure that the Panel would not have proceeded on the basis that it could ignore points made in writing merely because they were not repeated orally. The result was that the Panel’s written reasons did not comply with the legal principles set out above. Accordingly he would grant permission to apply for judicial review and quash the Panel’s decision.
Duty to give reasons for decision
FACTS:-
In June 2003 the Applicant was employed by Network Rail. In February 2006 she made a claim for compensation from CICA under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 alleging that she was lured to a room at her place of work, was physically held there against her will by three senior employees with a fourth acting as sentry outside the door, and while in the room was subjected to physical assaults and to mental torment including verbal sexual abuse. This incident was immediately followed by criminal intimidation and harassment. She was diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and was given medication. Her application was rejected by the CICA on two grounds. The CICA said that there was unreasonable delay in reporting the incident to the police and there was not enough evidence to support the claim. She sought a review and the reviewing officer asserted that the evidence showed unreasonable delay, but at the same time accepted that delay in reporting may have been due to the Applicant requiring psychological treatment during the interval. As regards the second ground of rejection the reviewing officer said, among other things, that Ms JC’s account was uncorroborated, that there was no evidence to prefer charges, and that “I cannot be satisfied, even on the balance of probabilities, as to the full circumstances surrounding this incident.” She appealed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, but they dismissed the appeal on the delay point and also on the sufficient evidence. The Applicant applied for permission to judicially review that decision, and in a “rolled up” hearing the Upper Tribunal judge dealt with the application for permission and the judicial review itself.
JUDGMENT:-
Mr Justice Walker said that a convenient summary of relevant principles when a Tribunal came to give reasons could be found in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Upper Tribunal in BB v South London & Maudsley NHS Trust [2009] UKUT 157 (AAC). The legal test was fully discussed in the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and R(H) v. Ashworth Hospital Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 923, [2002] MHLR 314, adopting what was said in English v. Emery Reimbold & Strick Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 1 WLR 2409.
The essential requirement was that what the Tribunal said should enable the parties and any appellate tribunal readily to analyse the reasoning that was essential to the decision. The Tribunal should provide an explanation as to why it had accepted the evidence of one expert and rejected that of another. As these cases made clear, the test was the same regardless of subject matter.
Judge Walker dealt with the Tribunal’s reasoning and found that it did not grapple with salient parts of the Applicant’s notice of appeal. She had explained what she did from June to December 2003, the difficulties she encountered in doing those things, and the state she was in. The Panel’s written reasons were silent on whether any of the things she said in these respects were accepted by the Panel, and if accepted whether the Panel considered that they nevertheless did not give a reasonable explanation for not reporting to the police at that time – and if so why not.
In relation to the sufficiency of the evidence, the Applicant had to show that she had
sustained a criminal injury directly attributable to a crime of violence. Here too the written reasons did not grapple with salient parts of the Applicant’s notice of appeal, and did not deal with crucial evidence that she had submitted. .
Walker J recognised that the Panel were faced with a very long and discursive written account from the Applicant. He had asked himself whether an omission to deal with a particular matter might reflect failure on the Applicant’s part to rely upon that matter at the hearing. He did not think that was the case. First, he had seen notes of the hearing which suggested that the most of the points identified above were relied upon orally. Second, when dealing with an unrepresented appellant, especially one who had been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD, he was sure that the Panel would not have proceeded on the basis that it could ignore points made in writing merely because they were not repeated orally. The result was that the Panel’s written reasons did not comply with the legal principles set out above. Accordingly he would grant permission to apply for judicial review and quash the Panel’s decision.