R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE POWELL UNREPORTED 16TH JULY 1993
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant was the victim of an assault in December 1984. He was attacked by the husband of a disgruntled employee. The police attended the scene and the Applicant was taken to hospital. He was asked who had assaulted him, but he either gave no answer or a wrong answer, because he was afraid that the man might come back. There was no prosecution. The aftermath of the attack was catastrophic for the Applicant. He had a complete mental collapse, and had not worked since.
He made an application to the CICB in October 1986, but his claim was initially refused by the Single Member in July 1988. The claim was then turned down by the Board in November 1990. The reason given was that the Applicant had not informed the police of the alleged circumstances of the injury pursuant to Paragraph 6(a) of the CICB Scheme. He applied for judicial review of the CICB’s decision.
HELD:-
Justice Hidden considered paragraph 6(a) of the CICB Scheme, which stated:-
“The Board may withhold or reduce compensation if they consider that….
Hidden J also referred to a Guide issued by the CICB, which referred to Paragraph 6(a), and stated that:-
“Fear of reprisals is not as a general rule a valid excuse for failure to co-operate with the police.”
Hidden J noted that this did not constitute an automatic exclusion. He referred to the case of R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Cummins The Times 21st January 1992 where the court criticised the failure by the CICB to give reasons for its decisions.
Hidden J also considered other parts of the CICB scheme. At paragraph 26, the CICB made a distinction between two situations:-
“a. An applicant refuses to co-operate with the police, for example, refuses to make a statement, attend court or such like conduct. The Board make no award.
b. The applicant was willing to attend an identification parade, name the assailant, attend court or it is then his duty to contact the police and co-operate with their enquiries as soon as he is able to do so. It is not sufficient to assume that the incident will have been reported by someone else because, even if it has, that person may not have known known the full circumstances. Reports by, or the evidence of friends, relatives or workmates will not be sufficient if there was no good reason for the victim not informing the police as well.”
Hidden J said that he was satisfied that the Board had not in fact provided any reasons for coming to the decision to withhold compensation completely. An affidavit had been provided by the chairman of the Board as to why the decision had been taken, but this could not alter or override or prevail over words actually used at the time. It followed that the Board’s decision in failing adequately to demonstrate the reasons for its decision and in saying wrongly in law, that the Applicant’s failure to inform the police precluded him from an award was Wednesbury unreasonable and was one to which no Board properly directing itself could have come.
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant was the victim of an assault in December 1984. He was attacked by the husband of a disgruntled employee. The police attended the scene and the Applicant was taken to hospital. He was asked who had assaulted him, but he either gave no answer or a wrong answer, because he was afraid that the man might come back. There was no prosecution. The aftermath of the attack was catastrophic for the Applicant. He had a complete mental collapse, and had not worked since.
He made an application to the CICB in October 1986, but his claim was initially refused by the Single Member in July 1988. The claim was then turned down by the Board in November 1990. The reason given was that the Applicant had not informed the police of the alleged circumstances of the injury pursuant to Paragraph 6(a) of the CICB Scheme. He applied for judicial review of the CICB’s decision.
HELD:-
Justice Hidden considered paragraph 6(a) of the CICB Scheme, which stated:-
“The Board may withhold or reduce compensation if they consider that….
- the Applicant has not taken without delay all reasonable steps to inform the police……of the circumstances of the injury and to co-operate with the police…….or other authority in bringing the offender to Justice.”
Hidden J also referred to a Guide issued by the CICB, which referred to Paragraph 6(a), and stated that:-
“Fear of reprisals is not as a general rule a valid excuse for failure to co-operate with the police.”
Hidden J noted that this did not constitute an automatic exclusion. He referred to the case of R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Cummins The Times 21st January 1992 where the court criticised the failure by the CICB to give reasons for its decisions.
Hidden J also considered other parts of the CICB scheme. At paragraph 26, the CICB made a distinction between two situations:-
“a. An applicant refuses to co-operate with the police, for example, refuses to make a statement, attend court or such like conduct. The Board make no award.
b. The applicant was willing to attend an identification parade, name the assailant, attend court or it is then his duty to contact the police and co-operate with their enquiries as soon as he is able to do so. It is not sufficient to assume that the incident will have been reported by someone else because, even if it has, that person may not have known known the full circumstances. Reports by, or the evidence of friends, relatives or workmates will not be sufficient if there was no good reason for the victim not informing the police as well.”
Hidden J said that he was satisfied that the Board had not in fact provided any reasons for coming to the decision to withhold compensation completely. An affidavit had been provided by the chairman of the Board as to why the decision had been taken, but this could not alter or override or prevail over words actually used at the time. It followed that the Board’s decision in failing adequately to demonstrate the reasons for its decision and in saying wrongly in law, that the Applicant’s failure to inform the police precluded him from an award was Wednesbury unreasonable and was one to which no Board properly directing itself could have come.