REGINA V CICB EX PARTE A HOUSE OF LORDS 25TH MARCH 1999
FACTS:-
A applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in November 1991 for compensation claiming that in the course of a burglary at her house on the 25th May 1991, she had been assaulted, raped and buggered. The application was refused on the 31st August 1993. On the 14th February 1995 she was given permission to apply for judicial review of this decision. Her application was dismissed at first instance, and that decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. She then appealed to the House of Lords.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Slynn said that an application for leave to apply for judicial review should be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds for the application first arose. Leave had been granted at first instance, but the delay in bringing the judicial review proceedings was still a live issue, and before the judge at first instance, the claim had been struck out of the grounds of delay. However Lord Slynn held that the judge at first instance did not have jurisdiction to reconsider the question of an extension of time.
Lord Slynn considered the way in which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board had been set up. Under paragraph 6 of the 1990 Scheme, the Board could withhold compensation if they considered that:-
“(a) the applicant had not taken, without delay, all reasonable steps to inform the police….of the circumstances of the injury….(b) the applicant had failed to give all reasonable assistance to the Board or other authority in connection with the application.”
After the case of R v CICB, Ex Parte Lain [1967] 2 QB 864 it was well established that the Board’s decisions were subject to judicial review.
At the time of the assault, the Applicant had not told the police of the sexual assaults because she was distressed and embarrassed. Three days later, she went to Victim Support and was advised to go to the police again. She was also examined by a police doctor who found haemorrhoids. The police were sceptical and the CICB Tribunal did not find the Applicant a convincing witness. The Tribunal turned down her claim, after considering all the evidence including the delay in reporting and the destruction of the forensic evidence. The burden was on the Applicant to establish that she was a victim of a crime of violence.
Lord Slynn said that one aspect of the hearing was disturbing and that was the impression given by the police officer who had taken the Applicant to the police, that the “trauma” in the rectum was due to haemorrhoids. Nobody enquired as to whether there was a record by the doctor of that examination, and the documents disclosed by the police to the CICB contained no such report.
However there was a report from the police doctor which the Board did not see, which stated quite clearly that the trauma to the anus confirmed the allegation of buggery. The vaginal finding was inconclusive.
The House of Lords had been asked to say whether there was jurisdiction to quash the CICB’s decision because that decision was reached on material errors of facts. Lord Slynn accepted that there was such jurisdiction, but preferred to decide that what happened was a breach of the rules of natural justice and constituted unfairness.
It was for the Applicant to obtain evidence, and there was no burden on the CICB to go out and look for it. The position was the same with the police, but it was clear that the CICB relied very heavily indeed on the police for its evidence. In the present case the CICB knew that A had been taken by the police to see a Police Doctor, but it was not sufficient for the police officer simply to give an oral statement without further inquiry when it was obvious that the Doctor was likely to have made notes and probably a written report.
The medical report did not prove the buggery, but if it had been produced, it would not have been possible for the Board to say that the medical evidence gave no assistance. There were other features about the case which were troublesome, in particular conflicting evidence given by the police and the way in which the CICB had interpreted certain evidence.
It was not possible to say that justice was done or seen to be done.
There was another question. The events happened a long time ago and there were difficulties in re-opening the case. On the other hand, the only new evidence was documentary and it was possible for the CICB to consider whether Dr West’s report changed the picture.
Lord McKay, Lord Nolan, Lord Clyde and Lord Hobhouse agreed.
FACTS:-
A applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in November 1991 for compensation claiming that in the course of a burglary at her house on the 25th May 1991, she had been assaulted, raped and buggered. The application was refused on the 31st August 1993. On the 14th February 1995 she was given permission to apply for judicial review of this decision. Her application was dismissed at first instance, and that decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. She then appealed to the House of Lords.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Slynn said that an application for leave to apply for judicial review should be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds for the application first arose. Leave had been granted at first instance, but the delay in bringing the judicial review proceedings was still a live issue, and before the judge at first instance, the claim had been struck out of the grounds of delay. However Lord Slynn held that the judge at first instance did not have jurisdiction to reconsider the question of an extension of time.
Lord Slynn considered the way in which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board had been set up. Under paragraph 6 of the 1990 Scheme, the Board could withhold compensation if they considered that:-
“(a) the applicant had not taken, without delay, all reasonable steps to inform the police….of the circumstances of the injury….(b) the applicant had failed to give all reasonable assistance to the Board or other authority in connection with the application.”
After the case of R v CICB, Ex Parte Lain [1967] 2 QB 864 it was well established that the Board’s decisions were subject to judicial review.
At the time of the assault, the Applicant had not told the police of the sexual assaults because she was distressed and embarrassed. Three days later, she went to Victim Support and was advised to go to the police again. She was also examined by a police doctor who found haemorrhoids. The police were sceptical and the CICB Tribunal did not find the Applicant a convincing witness. The Tribunal turned down her claim, after considering all the evidence including the delay in reporting and the destruction of the forensic evidence. The burden was on the Applicant to establish that she was a victim of a crime of violence.
Lord Slynn said that one aspect of the hearing was disturbing and that was the impression given by the police officer who had taken the Applicant to the police, that the “trauma” in the rectum was due to haemorrhoids. Nobody enquired as to whether there was a record by the doctor of that examination, and the documents disclosed by the police to the CICB contained no such report.
However there was a report from the police doctor which the Board did not see, which stated quite clearly that the trauma to the anus confirmed the allegation of buggery. The vaginal finding was inconclusive.
The House of Lords had been asked to say whether there was jurisdiction to quash the CICB’s decision because that decision was reached on material errors of facts. Lord Slynn accepted that there was such jurisdiction, but preferred to decide that what happened was a breach of the rules of natural justice and constituted unfairness.
It was for the Applicant to obtain evidence, and there was no burden on the CICB to go out and look for it. The position was the same with the police, but it was clear that the CICB relied very heavily indeed on the police for its evidence. In the present case the CICB knew that A had been taken by the police to see a Police Doctor, but it was not sufficient for the police officer simply to give an oral statement without further inquiry when it was obvious that the Doctor was likely to have made notes and probably a written report.
The medical report did not prove the buggery, but if it had been produced, it would not have been possible for the Board to say that the medical evidence gave no assistance. There were other features about the case which were troublesome, in particular conflicting evidence given by the police and the way in which the CICB had interpreted certain evidence.
It was not possible to say that justice was done or seen to be done.
There was another question. The events happened a long time ago and there were difficulties in re-opening the case. On the other hand, the only new evidence was documentary and it was possible for the CICB to consider whether Dr West’s report changed the picture.
Lord McKay, Lord Nolan, Lord Clyde and Lord Hobhouse agreed.