R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE SALT [1999] EWHC ADMIN 652
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant was assaulted on the 12th April 1996, having been injured as an innocent party in a dispute. He gave his name and address to the police, but made no substantive complaint. However having discovered that he had sustained a fractured arm he took legal advice. He then contacted the police again on the 8th May 1996. The police made enquiries but no-one was prosecuted. He applied for compensation on the 8th September 1996. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (“the Authority”) refused the application under Paragraph 13(b) (failure to cooperate with the police) and 13(d) (conduct of the applicant). On application for review, the Authority confirmed the decision but under 13(b) not 13(d). The Applicant appealed to the Criminal Injuries Appeals Panel who dismissed his appeal, saying that he had not co-operated with the police, and that he had only reported the matter later in order to obtain compensation. He applied for judicial review of the Panel’s decision.
HELD:-
Mr Justice Collins considered the facts of the case, and considered the terms of the CICA Scheme and Guidance. It had been suggested by the Panel that the Applicant was in breach of Paragraph 13(a) of the Scheme, which stated:-
“(a) the applicant failed to take, without delay, all reasonable steps to inform the police, or other body or person considered by the Authority to be appropriate for the purposes, of all the circumstances giving rise to the injury.”
Collins J had said that such a finding could not stand the evidence of what had happened, and what the Panel had actually found had happened. He then considered Paragraph 13(b):-
“(b) the applicant failed to co-operate with the police or other authority in attempting to bring the assailant to justice;…..”
The Guidance notes at paragraph 8.10 stated:-
“If the incident has been promptly reported to the police we have discretion to reduce or withhold compensation if you subsequently fail to co-operate in bringing the offender to justice.”
Collins J made the following points:-
Collins J referred to another case R v CICB ex parte Cooke [1996] WLR 1037 where the Court of Appeal disapproved some observations of Sedley J. The question that the Authority and the Panel had to ask was – should the Applicant receive an award and, if so, what amount? If was only if the Authority and the Panel came to the conclusion that the Applicant should recover an award that it needed to go on to decide whether it should be a full award or some other figure.
The decision of the Panel would be quashed and remitted to a fresh Panel.
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant was assaulted on the 12th April 1996, having been injured as an innocent party in a dispute. He gave his name and address to the police, but made no substantive complaint. However having discovered that he had sustained a fractured arm he took legal advice. He then contacted the police again on the 8th May 1996. The police made enquiries but no-one was prosecuted. He applied for compensation on the 8th September 1996. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (“the Authority”) refused the application under Paragraph 13(b) (failure to cooperate with the police) and 13(d) (conduct of the applicant). On application for review, the Authority confirmed the decision but under 13(b) not 13(d). The Applicant appealed to the Criminal Injuries Appeals Panel who dismissed his appeal, saying that he had not co-operated with the police, and that he had only reported the matter later in order to obtain compensation. He applied for judicial review of the Panel’s decision.
HELD:-
Mr Justice Collins considered the facts of the case, and considered the terms of the CICA Scheme and Guidance. It had been suggested by the Panel that the Applicant was in breach of Paragraph 13(a) of the Scheme, which stated:-
“(a) the applicant failed to take, without delay, all reasonable steps to inform the police, or other body or person considered by the Authority to be appropriate for the purposes, of all the circumstances giving rise to the injury.”
Collins J had said that such a finding could not stand the evidence of what had happened, and what the Panel had actually found had happened. He then considered Paragraph 13(b):-
“(b) the applicant failed to co-operate with the police or other authority in attempting to bring the assailant to justice;…..”
The Guidance notes at paragraph 8.10 stated:-
“If the incident has been promptly reported to the police we have discretion to reduce or withhold compensation if you subsequently fail to co-operate in bringing the offender to justice.”
Collins J made the following points:-
- The notes to paragraph 13(b) of the Scheme and 8.12 to the accompanying Guidance said that where there was an initial co-operation, with a subsequent failure to cooperate and then a change of mind, there would not be a withholding of an award but a reduction.
- The Panel should not have departed from their own guidance, unless there was a very good reason to do so.
- The Panel had acted irrationally to think only in terms of withholding an award.
Collins J referred to another case R v CICB ex parte Cooke [1996] WLR 1037 where the Court of Appeal disapproved some observations of Sedley J. The question that the Authority and the Panel had to ask was – should the Applicant receive an award and, if so, what amount? If was only if the Authority and the Panel came to the conclusion that the Applicant should recover an award that it needed to go on to decide whether it should be a full award or some other figure.
The decision of the Panel would be quashed and remitted to a fresh Panel.