R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE COOK [1996] WLR 1037
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant’s husband was murdered whilst serving a sentence of 16 years. He was actually on parole at the time but had breached the terms of that parole. The Applicant (who was of good character) sought an award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under the 1990 Scheme. The Single Member refused the application pursuant to Paragraph 6(c) of the Scheme on the ground that an award of compensation would be in appropriate having regard to the deceased’s criminal convictions. An application for an oral hearing was turned down, and the Applicant applied for judicial review. At first instance the application was dismissed, and the Applicant appealed.
HELD:-
Lord Justice Aldous considered the terms of the 1990 Scheme.
Paragraph 4 allowed a spouse or dependant to make a claim. Paragraph 6(c) stated:-
“The Board may withhold or reduce compensation if they consider that ……(c) having regard to the conduct of the applicant, before, during or after the events giving rise to the claim or to his character as shown by the criminal convictions or unlawful conduct – and, in applications under paragraphs 15 and 16 below, to the conduct or character as shown by the criminal convictions or unlawful conduct, of the deceased and of the applicant – it is inappropriate that a full award, or any award at all, be granted…..”
The judge in the court below had decided that Paragraph 6(c) did not exclude the conduct or character of the deceased being taken into consideration. This was now accepted by the Applicant. However the Applicant also argued that her character had not been taken into account by the CICB. Aldous LJ said that compensation might be refused if the Applicant was of bad character even though his bad character had not given rise to the injury. Furthermore the wording of the second part of Paragraph 6(c) made it clear that the CICB could take into account the bad character of the deceased and the bad character of the Applicant or absence of bad character of the Applicant.
Aldous LJ said that it was clear that the CICB’s reasons should contain sufficient detail to enable the reader to know what conclusion had been reached on the principal important issue or issues. However it was not a requirement that they should deal with every material consideration to which they have had regard. In the view of Aldous LJ, the reasons given by the CICB were adequate, insofar as they were stated in an intelligible fashion. It was not possible to say that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable.
The Applicant also submitted that the CICB were wrong not to allow an oral hearing pursuant to Paragraph 24 of the Scheme. In such a case, the CICB had a discretion whether to appoint an oral hearing. Paragraph 24 made it very clear in what circumstances such an oral hearing would be held, and the application for an oral hearing raised nothing new. Therefore this appeal should be dismissed.
Hobhouse LJ agreed. He referred to a case relied upon by the Applicant, R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Gambles [1994] PIQR P314. Hobhouse LJ said that he would criticise the decision in this case, insofar as it had found defects in the clarity and completeness of the thought processes as set out in the reasons given by the CICB in that case. Such considerations might be relevant to an appeal but did not suffice for setting aside by way of judicial review a decision which was not prima facie irrational or improper. Gambles was also inconsistent with another case R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thompstone [1984] 1 WLR 1234 and it should not be regarded as good law.
In relation to the reasons given, the classic statement of the standard of reasons was In re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467. In this case, the reasons given by the CICB were brief but they were adequate for their purpose.
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant’s husband was murdered whilst serving a sentence of 16 years. He was actually on parole at the time but had breached the terms of that parole. The Applicant (who was of good character) sought an award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under the 1990 Scheme. The Single Member refused the application pursuant to Paragraph 6(c) of the Scheme on the ground that an award of compensation would be in appropriate having regard to the deceased’s criminal convictions. An application for an oral hearing was turned down, and the Applicant applied for judicial review. At first instance the application was dismissed, and the Applicant appealed.
HELD:-
Lord Justice Aldous considered the terms of the 1990 Scheme.
Paragraph 4 allowed a spouse or dependant to make a claim. Paragraph 6(c) stated:-
“The Board may withhold or reduce compensation if they consider that ……(c) having regard to the conduct of the applicant, before, during or after the events giving rise to the claim or to his character as shown by the criminal convictions or unlawful conduct – and, in applications under paragraphs 15 and 16 below, to the conduct or character as shown by the criminal convictions or unlawful conduct, of the deceased and of the applicant – it is inappropriate that a full award, or any award at all, be granted…..”
The judge in the court below had decided that Paragraph 6(c) did not exclude the conduct or character of the deceased being taken into consideration. This was now accepted by the Applicant. However the Applicant also argued that her character had not been taken into account by the CICB. Aldous LJ said that compensation might be refused if the Applicant was of bad character even though his bad character had not given rise to the injury. Furthermore the wording of the second part of Paragraph 6(c) made it clear that the CICB could take into account the bad character of the deceased and the bad character of the Applicant or absence of bad character of the Applicant.
Aldous LJ said that it was clear that the CICB’s reasons should contain sufficient detail to enable the reader to know what conclusion had been reached on the principal important issue or issues. However it was not a requirement that they should deal with every material consideration to which they have had regard. In the view of Aldous LJ, the reasons given by the CICB were adequate, insofar as they were stated in an intelligible fashion. It was not possible to say that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable.
The Applicant also submitted that the CICB were wrong not to allow an oral hearing pursuant to Paragraph 24 of the Scheme. In such a case, the CICB had a discretion whether to appoint an oral hearing. Paragraph 24 made it very clear in what circumstances such an oral hearing would be held, and the application for an oral hearing raised nothing new. Therefore this appeal should be dismissed.
Hobhouse LJ agreed. He referred to a case relied upon by the Applicant, R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Gambles [1994] PIQR P314. Hobhouse LJ said that he would criticise the decision in this case, insofar as it had found defects in the clarity and completeness of the thought processes as set out in the reasons given by the CICB in that case. Such considerations might be relevant to an appeal but did not suffice for setting aside by way of judicial review a decision which was not prima facie irrational or improper. Gambles was also inconsistent with another case R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thompstone [1984] 1 WLR 1234 and it should not be regarded as good law.
In relation to the reasons given, the classic statement of the standard of reasons was In re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467. In this case, the reasons given by the CICB were brief but they were adequate for their purpose.