R (VA) V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL [2009] UKUT 147
FACTS:-
The Applicant completed a claim form for criminal injuries compensation in June 2006. She made a claim in respect of abuse from her former partner over a period from July 2001 to March 2002, which included a single assault on the 22nd February 2002. However she also alleged an incident of rape. She reported the matter to the police, but they took no further action apart from interviewing the former partner who denied the abuse.
In August 2007, her claim was rejected on the grounds of non-cooperation with the police (paragraph 13(b) of the 2001 Scheme). The CICAP dealt with her application sympathetically and accepted that the assault had taken place. However they concentrated only on the assault that took place on the 22nd February 2002 and awarded nothing for the rape.
The Applicant applied for judicial review of that decision.
HELD:-
Judge Rowland said that the scope of the claim had been made explicit on the claim form and the references to rape were quite clear. There had also been a psychological report produced to support the claim which mentioned the rape. The key error on the part of the tribunal was to concentrate on one incident rather than the course of conduct in respect of which the claim was made.
FACTS:-
The Applicant completed a claim form for criminal injuries compensation in June 2006. She made a claim in respect of abuse from her former partner over a period from July 2001 to March 2002, which included a single assault on the 22nd February 2002. However she also alleged an incident of rape. She reported the matter to the police, but they took no further action apart from interviewing the former partner who denied the abuse.
In August 2007, her claim was rejected on the grounds of non-cooperation with the police (paragraph 13(b) of the 2001 Scheme). The CICAP dealt with her application sympathetically and accepted that the assault had taken place. However they concentrated only on the assault that took place on the 22nd February 2002 and awarded nothing for the rape.
The Applicant applied for judicial review of that decision.
HELD:-
Judge Rowland said that the scope of the claim had been made explicit on the claim form and the references to rape were quite clear. There had also been a psychological report produced to support the claim which mentioned the rape. The key error on the part of the tribunal was to concentrate on one incident rather than the course of conduct in respect of which the claim was made.