RE G (A WARD) (CRIMINAL INJURIES : COMPENSATION) [1993] 1 FLR 103
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant was a girl whose parents’ relationship had broken down in 1984. The father continued to have visiting access rights to the girl until 1986, at which point he was accused of sexually abusing the girl. He issued wardship proceedings, during which the father was exonerated, but the court ordered that she should remain with her mother. The Official Solicitor (acting for the girl) instructed a psychiatric who concluded that the girl had been sexually abused. The Official Solicitor then made an application to the court for permission to bring an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The father attended the hearing and opposed the application. Permission was granted and the father appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD:-
Lord Justice Purchas said that it was necessary to understand the status of the parties before the CICB and the procedures adopted there. The Board was appointed under the royal prerogative to exercise that prerogative by way of making an ex gratia payment to those who were the victims of violent crime. This was not the equivalent of inter partes litigation in which the principles of res iudicata or issue estoppel The CICB were not bound by any rules of evidence. There was no appropriate parallel to be drawn between the rules of evidence applicable in inter partes litigation and the process available to the CICB. The application to the Board could not be described as an abuse of the process of the court.
Stocker LJ agreed.
Sir Christopher Slade agreed. He said that it would not be right to grant permission for the application to proceed, if it were shown that there were no prospects of success. In this case the CICB was not a court of law, and the issues of res iudicata did not apply. A successful acquittal in criminal proceedings would not be a bar to an application to the CICB.
The father had had the right to be represented and heard in these proceedings. The findings of the judge at first instance had been exercised with regards to the best interests of the ward.
CICA
FACTS:-
The Applicant was a girl whose parents’ relationship had broken down in 1984. The father continued to have visiting access rights to the girl until 1986, at which point he was accused of sexually abusing the girl. He issued wardship proceedings, during which the father was exonerated, but the court ordered that she should remain with her mother. The Official Solicitor (acting for the girl) instructed a psychiatric who concluded that the girl had been sexually abused. The Official Solicitor then made an application to the court for permission to bring an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The father attended the hearing and opposed the application. Permission was granted and the father appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD:-
Lord Justice Purchas said that it was necessary to understand the status of the parties before the CICB and the procedures adopted there. The Board was appointed under the royal prerogative to exercise that prerogative by way of making an ex gratia payment to those who were the victims of violent crime. This was not the equivalent of inter partes litigation in which the principles of res iudicata or issue estoppel The CICB were not bound by any rules of evidence. There was no appropriate parallel to be drawn between the rules of evidence applicable in inter partes litigation and the process available to the CICB. The application to the Board could not be described as an abuse of the process of the court.
Stocker LJ agreed.
Sir Christopher Slade agreed. He said that it would not be right to grant permission for the application to proceed, if it were shown that there were no prospects of success. In this case the CICB was not a court of law, and the issues of res iudicata did not apply. A successful acquittal in criminal proceedings would not be a bar to an application to the CICB.
The father had had the right to be represented and heard in these proceedings. The findings of the judge at first instance had been exercised with regards to the best interests of the ward.