R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE REID CO 4195-95 4th MARCH 1996
FACTS:-
The Applicant was applying for judicial review of the CICB’s decision to refuse compensation for an assault by two women on the street, when she had jewellery taken from her and she was assaulted. She reported the incident to the police and when she came to make her CICB application, she gave the date of reporting the incident and the crime reference number. Her application was refused on the grounds that she had unreasonably delayed reporting the incident to the police. She explained that she thought that someone else might report it. She thought that her neighbours had called the police, but when they did not, she went to hospital. Then three to four days later, when she realised that the police were not turning up, she reported the matter.
JUDGEMENT:-
Mr Justice Sedley said that it was indispensable to the court that they should have a copy of the CICB’s reasons for refusal. It was unfortunate that there was no requirement upon the CICB to give reasons. However there was in fact a note of the CICB’s reasons for refusal pursuant to Paragraph 6(a) of the Scheme. They had found that the Applicant did not have any justifiable grounds for believing that the police had been informed and as a result the matter was not contemporaneously investigated.
The CICB clearly had material that led it to state that the incident had been reported at 9.40 p.m. on the 26th June (the incident took place on the 22nd June). However no police witnesses were present and so there was no opportunity to question them about the true history of reporting the matter. Sedley J accepted entirely that this was not because the CICB had a secret fund of information but because the CICB’s advocate would have had material not necessarily considered appropriate for the members of the Board to see. According to the CICB, there was an understanding that such information was to be treated as confidential. Sedley J said that this was information which came into the possession of the CICB and could not and should not be used selectively in this way. There should be a consideration by the court as to whether there was any proper shield of confidentiality which could have the general effect of non-disclosure.
However none of this withheld matter appeared to be capable of affecting the real issue before the CICB. The real issue was the application of Paragraph 6(a) of the CICB Scheme. Sedley J said that the significant point for the CICB was plainly that it was not promptly reported. He did not read their finding as disbelieving the Applicant (except for the allegation that a neighbour had called the police). They were entitled to find that she should have reported the matter to the police following discharge from hospital the next day. By the time three days had elapsed, the birds had flown.
The process of prompt reporting in order that offenders could be brought to justice, had a variety of knock-on effects. If the offender could be found, then the veracity of the complaint was enhanced. If the offender was found and found not guilty, then that would probably do irreparable damage to the Applicant’s claim. A further purpose was to see if the complaint was genuine. The sole purpose of Paragraph 6(a) was not to give assistance to the process of justice.
Sedley J said that in his view, on the basis of the reasons that were now known to the court but which were not known to Miss Reid, the CICB could not be said to have departed from the Scheme in coming to its conclusions.
FACTS:-
The Applicant was applying for judicial review of the CICB’s decision to refuse compensation for an assault by two women on the street, when she had jewellery taken from her and she was assaulted. She reported the incident to the police and when she came to make her CICB application, she gave the date of reporting the incident and the crime reference number. Her application was refused on the grounds that she had unreasonably delayed reporting the incident to the police. She explained that she thought that someone else might report it. She thought that her neighbours had called the police, but when they did not, she went to hospital. Then three to four days later, when she realised that the police were not turning up, she reported the matter.
JUDGEMENT:-
Mr Justice Sedley said that it was indispensable to the court that they should have a copy of the CICB’s reasons for refusal. It was unfortunate that there was no requirement upon the CICB to give reasons. However there was in fact a note of the CICB’s reasons for refusal pursuant to Paragraph 6(a) of the Scheme. They had found that the Applicant did not have any justifiable grounds for believing that the police had been informed and as a result the matter was not contemporaneously investigated.
The CICB clearly had material that led it to state that the incident had been reported at 9.40 p.m. on the 26th June (the incident took place on the 22nd June). However no police witnesses were present and so there was no opportunity to question them about the true history of reporting the matter. Sedley J accepted entirely that this was not because the CICB had a secret fund of information but because the CICB’s advocate would have had material not necessarily considered appropriate for the members of the Board to see. According to the CICB, there was an understanding that such information was to be treated as confidential. Sedley J said that this was information which came into the possession of the CICB and could not and should not be used selectively in this way. There should be a consideration by the court as to whether there was any proper shield of confidentiality which could have the general effect of non-disclosure.
However none of this withheld matter appeared to be capable of affecting the real issue before the CICB. The real issue was the application of Paragraph 6(a) of the CICB Scheme. Sedley J said that the significant point for the CICB was plainly that it was not promptly reported. He did not read their finding as disbelieving the Applicant (except for the allegation that a neighbour had called the police). They were entitled to find that she should have reported the matter to the police following discharge from hospital the next day. By the time three days had elapsed, the birds had flown.
The process of prompt reporting in order that offenders could be brought to justice, had a variety of knock-on effects. If the offender could be found, then the veracity of the complaint was enhanced. If the offender was found and found not guilty, then that would probably do irreparable damage to the Applicant’s claim. A further purpose was to see if the complaint was genuine. The sole purpose of Paragraph 6(a) was not to give assistance to the process of justice.
Sedley J said that in his view, on the basis of the reasons that were now known to the court but which were not known to Miss Reid, the CICB could not be said to have departed from the Scheme in coming to its conclusions.