R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE KENT AND MILNE [1998] EWHC Admin 625
FACTS:-
The Applicants were the mother and step father of J, a child who was abused by her step grandfather. Both suffered a reactive depression as a result of this disclosure. Their child disclosed the abuse to both of them, and they went with her to the police. The child was interviewed by the police in the presence of her mother. Both parents were shown a pornographic video that the step grandfather had made.
Their applications were rejected as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board said that the injuries were not directly attributable to a crime of violence.
The Applicants applied for judicial review.
HELD:-
The court dismissed the application. They said that there was no doubt that K and M had no cause of action at common law against the step grandfather. They did not have the necessary proximity to the assaults. Proximity was a relevant but not conclusive consideration when direct attribution was determined. The closer in time and place the secondary victim was to the crime of violence, the more likely it was that the personal injury that occurred as a result of being told about the crime, would be directly attributable to it. The child in this case had not disclosed the assaults until at least several days after the last assault and many months after the earlier assaults.
FACTS:-
The Applicants were the mother and step father of J, a child who was abused by her step grandfather. Both suffered a reactive depression as a result of this disclosure. Their child disclosed the abuse to both of them, and they went with her to the police. The child was interviewed by the police in the presence of her mother. Both parents were shown a pornographic video that the step grandfather had made.
Their applications were rejected as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board said that the injuries were not directly attributable to a crime of violence.
The Applicants applied for judicial review.
HELD:-
The court dismissed the application. They said that there was no doubt that K and M had no cause of action at common law against the step grandfather. They did not have the necessary proximity to the assaults. Proximity was a relevant but not conclusive consideration when direct attribution was determined. The closer in time and place the secondary victim was to the crime of violence, the more likely it was that the personal injury that occurred as a result of being told about the crime, would be directly attributable to it. The child in this case had not disclosed the assaults until at least several days after the last assault and many months after the earlier assaults.