R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE DELARMI UNREPORTED 22ND FEBRUARY 1996
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant suffered a serious sexual and physical attack in 1958, as a result of which he suffered unpleasant physical injuries as well as psychological damage. The assailant was convicted and imprisoned. At the time he was 11 years old. He made an application to the CICB in 1994 under the 1990 Scheme, but this was refused by the Chairman of the Board due to the fact that the claim had not been brought within the then 3 year time limit. The Applicant applied for permission to judicial review this decision.
HELD:-
Justice Jowitt considered paragraph 4 of the 1990 Scheme, which said:-
“Applications for compensation will be entertained only if made within 3 years of the incident giving rise to the injury except that the Board may, in exceptional cases, waive this requirement. The decision by the Chairman not to waive the time limit will be final.”
Jowitt J said that firstly there had to be exceptional circumstances, and then the Chairman had to consider whether the three year ban should be waived. He could only give permission to apply for judicial review if there were grounds on which it was arguable that the Chairman’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. The reasons given by the Chairman were compelling.
The Applicant faced another difficulty. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was first introduced in 1964. It was clear from the outset of that scheme that only injuries caused or inflicted after the Scheme began, could be compensated within the Scheme.
It had been argued by the Applicant’s counsel that the 1990 Scheme had, save for the three year time bar, removed entirely any limitation period so that however long ago an injury was inflicted the only time bar was the three year one. The previous 1979 Scheme had retained the cut off point of 1964.
Jowitt J said that in a scheme which was simply a modification of what had gone before, it would be astonishing if the old 1964 cut off had been entirely abandoned by silence.
This application would be refused.
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant suffered a serious sexual and physical attack in 1958, as a result of which he suffered unpleasant physical injuries as well as psychological damage. The assailant was convicted and imprisoned. At the time he was 11 years old. He made an application to the CICB in 1994 under the 1990 Scheme, but this was refused by the Chairman of the Board due to the fact that the claim had not been brought within the then 3 year time limit. The Applicant applied for permission to judicial review this decision.
HELD:-
Justice Jowitt considered paragraph 4 of the 1990 Scheme, which said:-
“Applications for compensation will be entertained only if made within 3 years of the incident giving rise to the injury except that the Board may, in exceptional cases, waive this requirement. The decision by the Chairman not to waive the time limit will be final.”
Jowitt J said that firstly there had to be exceptional circumstances, and then the Chairman had to consider whether the three year ban should be waived. He could only give permission to apply for judicial review if there were grounds on which it was arguable that the Chairman’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. The reasons given by the Chairman were compelling.
The Applicant faced another difficulty. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was first introduced in 1964. It was clear from the outset of that scheme that only injuries caused or inflicted after the Scheme began, could be compensated within the Scheme.
It had been argued by the Applicant’s counsel that the 1990 Scheme had, save for the three year time bar, removed entirely any limitation period so that however long ago an injury was inflicted the only time bar was the three year one. The previous 1979 Scheme had retained the cut off point of 1964.
Jowitt J said that in a scheme which was simply a modification of what had gone before, it would be astonishing if the old 1964 cut off had been entirely abandoned by silence.
This application would be refused.