R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE BROWN MURPHY UNREPORTED 28TH NOVEMBER 1997
FACTS:-
The Applicant was the eldest of seven siblings, who were sexually abused by their mother, father and stepfather. The father of the first five children committed suicide and in 1989 the mother and the stepfather moved in 1989 from Ireland to Wales. Within a year the abuse was discovered and the children were taken into care. The Applicant and two of her brothers applied for criminal injuries compensation. The Applicant’s compensation was assessed at £9,000 in 1993, but this was considered too low and the application was therefore renewed before the full Board. In 1995 the Applicant returned to live with her mother, who 1992 had escaped from prison and had gone to Ireland. Extradition proceeding were very slow. The Board heard the Applicant’s case in 1996 and refused compensation, raising the issue of paragraph 7 of the Scheme, which provided:-
“Compensation will not be payable unless the Board are satisfied that there is no possibility that a person responsible for causing the injury will benefit from an award.”
The Applicant accepted that the possibility could not be excluded that she would resume close contact with her mother, nor that the mother might not benefit. However her mother had not been convicted of any offence that specifically related to her. She had been charged with the offence of conspiracy to indecently assault her children which was ordered to lie on file. She was convicted of incest on two of her other children. She applied for judicial review of the Board’s decision.
HELD:-
Justice Sedley considered the oral judgment of the Board and the arguments from both sides. He concluded that the policy and objects of the Scheme as reflected in Paragraph 7 were not to deprive an otherwise deserving Claimant of an award on the ground of possible benefit to a third party unless that third party bore a criminal responsibility for the Claimant’s injury.
It might well be that the mother could have been charged with neglecting or exposing the Applicant by failing to protect her from the stepfather’s attentions, if necessary by going to social services or the police. However the evidence of the children was not all one way on this issue. The Board had not considered this question upon the restricted basis which Sedley J had held to be the proper one. He was not willing to refuse relief on the ground that only one answer was open to the Board on the evidence before it, namely that the Applicant’s mother was criminal responsibility under Section 1 of the Children and Young Person’s Act 1933 for the harm done to the Applicant by her stepfather.
Therefore the Applicant’s application for judicial review would be granted and it was for the Board to consider the situation as it now stood, including the present likelihood of the mother obtaining any benefit from the award to which the Applicant was entitled.
Sedley J suggested that the money be placed in trust.
FACTS:-
The Applicant was the eldest of seven siblings, who were sexually abused by their mother, father and stepfather. The father of the first five children committed suicide and in 1989 the mother and the stepfather moved in 1989 from Ireland to Wales. Within a year the abuse was discovered and the children were taken into care. The Applicant and two of her brothers applied for criminal injuries compensation. The Applicant’s compensation was assessed at £9,000 in 1993, but this was considered too low and the application was therefore renewed before the full Board. In 1995 the Applicant returned to live with her mother, who 1992 had escaped from prison and had gone to Ireland. Extradition proceeding were very slow. The Board heard the Applicant’s case in 1996 and refused compensation, raising the issue of paragraph 7 of the Scheme, which provided:-
“Compensation will not be payable unless the Board are satisfied that there is no possibility that a person responsible for causing the injury will benefit from an award.”
The Applicant accepted that the possibility could not be excluded that she would resume close contact with her mother, nor that the mother might not benefit. However her mother had not been convicted of any offence that specifically related to her. She had been charged with the offence of conspiracy to indecently assault her children which was ordered to lie on file. She was convicted of incest on two of her other children. She applied for judicial review of the Board’s decision.
HELD:-
Justice Sedley considered the oral judgment of the Board and the arguments from both sides. He concluded that the policy and objects of the Scheme as reflected in Paragraph 7 were not to deprive an otherwise deserving Claimant of an award on the ground of possible benefit to a third party unless that third party bore a criminal responsibility for the Claimant’s injury.
It might well be that the mother could have been charged with neglecting or exposing the Applicant by failing to protect her from the stepfather’s attentions, if necessary by going to social services or the police. However the evidence of the children was not all one way on this issue. The Board had not considered this question upon the restricted basis which Sedley J had held to be the proper one. He was not willing to refuse relief on the ground that only one answer was open to the Board on the evidence before it, namely that the Applicant’s mother was criminal responsibility under Section 1 of the Children and Young Person’s Act 1933 for the harm done to the Applicant by her stepfather.
Therefore the Applicant’s application for judicial review would be granted and it was for the Board to consider the situation as it now stood, including the present likelihood of the mother obtaining any benefit from the award to which the Applicant was entitled.
Sedley J suggested that the money be placed in trust.