X V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD 5TH JULY 1999 TIMES LAW REPORTS
CICA
FACTS:-
The Petitioner was born in October 1966. She alleged sexual abuse by one M over a period of years from about the time she was 8 years old. M was the uncle of a friend of the Petitioner who also suffered sexual abuse at his hands. The Petitioner first disclosed the abuse to a psychologist in 1993 and then to the police in 1994. However proceedings were not taken due to a lack of corroborative evidence.
She sought judicial review of a decision of the CICB refusing to waive in her case the three year time limit under the 1990 Scheme.
HELD:-
Lord Penrose considered the history of the case. In his opinion there could be no absolute duty on the CICB to give reasons for the refusal of the time limit in every case, whatever the appropriate classification of the Board’s function as administrative or quasi-judicial. However the CICB could not properly be characterised as a fully judicial body, it was in the judgment of Lord Penrose, quasi judicial. The decision as to whether to waive the time limit fell within that quasi judicial function. In the absence of an absolute duty to state reasons, the question became one of circumstances. There were a number of factors which might have influenced the decision in this case:-
There should have been a statement in outline of the Board’s reasons for refusing waiver. Only then could one form a view on the legality of the decision. A bald statement to the effect that the circumstances were not exceptional was necessarily defective. It did not follow that the actual decision was unreasonable. Therefore the Board should issue a fresh decision on the application with a statement of reasons.
CICA
FACTS:-
The Petitioner was born in October 1966. She alleged sexual abuse by one M over a period of years from about the time she was 8 years old. M was the uncle of a friend of the Petitioner who also suffered sexual abuse at his hands. The Petitioner first disclosed the abuse to a psychologist in 1993 and then to the police in 1994. However proceedings were not taken due to a lack of corroborative evidence.
She sought judicial review of a decision of the CICB refusing to waive in her case the three year time limit under the 1990 Scheme.
HELD:-
Lord Penrose considered the history of the case. In his opinion there could be no absolute duty on the CICB to give reasons for the refusal of the time limit in every case, whatever the appropriate classification of the Board’s function as administrative or quasi-judicial. However the CICB could not properly be characterised as a fully judicial body, it was in the judgment of Lord Penrose, quasi judicial. The decision as to whether to waive the time limit fell within that quasi judicial function. In the absence of an absolute duty to state reasons, the question became one of circumstances. There were a number of factors which might have influenced the decision in this case:-
- The length of the delay
- The medical evidence was less than positive in attributing the Petitioner’s mental condition to the alleged abuse
- The lack of corroborating witness evidence
There should have been a statement in outline of the Board’s reasons for refusing waiver. Only then could one form a view on the legality of the decision. A bald statement to the effect that the circumstances were not exceptional was necessarily defective. It did not follow that the actual decision was unreasonable. Therefore the Board should issue a fresh decision on the application with a statement of reasons.