Category listing
Egilibility
Please note Most recent cases will be added to the top of this page
DJS v CICAP and the Advocate General for Scotland
DJS v CICAP and the Advocate General for Scotland 
(131kb)
R on the application of CD and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel and R on the application of JM and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
(Vulnerability - Real consent)
CD sought compensation because of an act of unlawful sexual intercourse. CD was 12 and the assailant was 21. JM sought compensation because she alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by the son of her foster carers. The Court referred to the tests set out by Lord Woolf sitting in the Court of Appeal in the case of JE to ascertain whether there had been real consent.
In the case of CD it was held that there had been real consent and that the Panel had considered the necessary factors before arriving at their decision.
In the case of JM it was held that the Panel had failed to take into account all of the relevant factors set out in the case of JE.
The judgement refers to the role of the Presenting Officer in a hearing.
Paragraphs 8 (a), 18, 64 1996 Scheme
Sexual Offences Act 1956
Queens Bench Division Administrative Court 05/07/04 J 15 (78E)
Regina (M) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
(Same family - Foster carers)
Applicant was an infant who sustained injuries when he was placed in the care of foster parents.
The Court held that the applicant was not eligible to claim Criminal Injuries Compensation because the victim and the offender were living together at the time as members of the same family.
Paragraph 7 1969 Scheme
Paragraphs 8, 28 & 29 1990 Scheme
Children Act 1948
Boarding Out of Children Regulations (S1 1955 No 1377)
Queens Bench Division 28/06/04 J14 (77 E)
C0/5310/2003 - 28th June 2004 (74kb)
C and the Home Office and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
(Who instructs and pays for reports; Costs of representation)
The Claimant was a minor who was assaulted when she was 11 months old. Her representatives had obtained expert reports and incurred costs in doing so. The Court held that CICA is required to obtain reports whenever, in the course of a claim, one is needed. Paragraph 20 of the 1996 Scheme (see para 21 of the 2001 Scheme) is there to relieve the Claimant of the work and cost of obtaining medical evidence in support of a claim. Claimant's solicitors cannot make their own medical inquiries and assume that they can pass on the cost to CICA. Where a claimant instructs a representative to ensure that the award is as full as it should be and commits a part of the award to obtaining representation, this is not to be at the CICA's expense and cannot be rewarded under the Scheme.
Paragraphs 19, (19), 20,(21) 52 of the Scheme(s) 1995 & (2001)
Articles 6, 8, 14, 1 protocol 1 of the ECHR
Court of Appeal 03/03/04 J13 (76E)"
The Appellant subsequently applied to the European Court of Human Rights claiming the decision of the Court of Appeal was perverse. The European Court declared on 25 August 2005 the application inadmissable.
C and the Home Office and The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (171.99kb)
Avis Bennett (James Bennett's representative) v CICAP
(Reasonableness and the CICAP's discrection)
Petitioner was drunk and anxious to obtain a taxi; he sat on a bonnet of a taxi thinking it was empty. The driver and a female passenger got out to remonstrate with him; during the altercation which followed, the petitioner was pushed by the husband of the female passenger who thought that the petitioner had grabbed hold of his wife; the petitioner fell to the ground stricking his head sustaining a serious injury. The Panel rejected the application under paragraph 8(a) of the 1990 Scheme on the basis that the Petitioner had not sustained a criminal Injury as defined in paragraph 8(a).
The Court held that the Panel's decision was both lawful and reasonable. There was a basis in the evidence for the conclusions reached on the facts. Matters concerning the weight of the evidence were for the Panel to resolve and they have done so satisfactorily.
Paragraph 8(a) of the 1990 Scheme
Court of Session 09/12/03 J12 (75E)
Bennet v CICAP (182.66KB)
Alan Cleary v CICAP
(convictions, differing approaches)
The Appeals Panel made an award which was reduced to take account of the fact that the Claimant had convictions and had failed to cooperate with the police. The CICA had previously rejected the claim for a different reason. The Court held that the CICAP's decision was not wrong in law. The CICAP could apply a different approach from that followed by the CICA in certain issues as it was opened to the Scheme to operate in that way.
Paragraph 13 1996 Scheme
Court of Appeal 08/10/03 (74E)
Cleary v CICAP (43.30kb)
C and the Home Office and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
(Instructions and costs of experts reports See case 76e above)
The Claimant was a minor who was assaulted when she was 11 months old. Her representatives had obtained expert reports and incurred costs in doing so.
Held that a Claimant's obligation to "make out his case" under the Scheme does not require him to obtain at his own expense all the professional reports necessary to prove the nature and extent of his injuries and their impact upon his life and cost of alleviating it. The burden of investigating both whether the Claimant sustained significant injury and the cost incurred will fall on the Claims Officer.
See case (76e)
Paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 17,18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 1996 Scheme
Article 1 protocol 1, Article 6 and 14 ECHR
Human Rights Act 1998
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995
Administrative Court - 22/05/03 J09 (73E)
R(on the application of J.E) v The Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
(Vulnerability - real consent)
Applicant who had a low IQ was sexually assaulted while on remand in prison. The Court held that the correct approach to the correct approach to the question of eligibility for compensation involved asking whether the conduct suggested as amounting to a bar of recovery (in the present case, consent) made it inappropriate that an award should be made, i.e whether the claimant could properly be described as a victim. The panel in this case whilst addressing the applicant's low IQ also required to consider the relative degrees of responsibility between the applicant and the "aggressor"
See cases (70E, 68E, 60E below)
Paragraphs 6,8,9, 13,18,64 1996 Scheme
Sexual Offences Act 1956
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995
Court of Appeal - 03/03/03 - J 07 (72E)
R v CICAP re JE (201.74kb)
C and Secretary of State for the Home Office
Human Rights compatibility para 18 and 52 of Schemes. Who bears the cost of investigating whether the applicant sustained significant injury and quantifying any loss of earnings claimAdministrative Court - 22/05/03 J09 (72E)
C and The Secretary of State for the Home Office (418.12kb)
R on the application of 'M' v CICAP
(Waiver of 2 year time limit)
The Claimant alleged that he had been the victim of a serious sexual assault whilst placed in the care of social services. His application for criminal injuries compensation was made outside of the specified 2 year limit.
The Court held that the decision to refuse to waive the 2 year time limit under paragraph 17 of the Scheme was not ' Wednesbury' unreasonable. The fact that other cases have succeeded so far as the waiver of the time limit was concerned was not an inconsistent approach especially as the court had no knowledge of the other cases.
Paragraphs 13, 17, 58, 60, 66, 67 of the 1996 Scheme
Administrative Court
QBD - 03/02/03 - J05 - (71E)
R v CICAP ex parte 'M' (235.02kb)
August v United Kingdom
( Applicability - ECHR articles 6, 8, 13, 14)
The applicant sustained an assault whilst in the care of the local authority. His assailant was convicted of one count of buggery involving the applicant in which the evidence was that the applicant was a consenting participant. His application was rejected on the basis that he had participated "voluntarily" even though there had been a crime of violence.
The Court considered whether there had been a violation of articles 8, 6, 13 and 14. The court concluded that the grant of criminal injuries compensation provides ex gratia awards and it was therefore not apparent that any proceedings before the CICA and the CICAP concerned any any of the applicant's civil rights in the sense guaranteed by article 6. The court observed that assuming the procedures did fall within the scope of article 6 that article 6 does not in itself guarantee any particular content for civil rights and obligations. The court was not persuaded that the applicant was the vitim of discrimination for the purposes of article 14. It found that Article 13 was inapplicable.
(See cases 71E, 67E, 61E)
Paragraphs 8, 13, 1996 Scheme
ECHR 21/01/03 J06 H 04 (70E)
August v United Kingdom (104.87kb)
S The Advocate General for Scotland
(Applicability of Human Rights Act - Retrospectivity)
The petitioner was abused by her stepfather in 1997 and submitted a claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996. Her claim was rejected in terms of paragraph 7 (b) in that she and her assailant were living together as members of the same family and the injuries were sustained before 1st October 1979. The court considered that the Human Rights Act did not apply retrospectively to decisions taken before it came into force.
Paragraphs 7 1996 Scheme
ECHR articles 6, 1, 14
Human Rights Act 1998 22, 7, 6
Court of Session 05/12/96 (J03) (69E)
S against The Advocate General for Scotland (64.71kb)
R on the application of 'JE' v the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
(Vulnerability real consent see 72E above)
The applicant who had a low IQ was sexually assaulted while on remand in prison. The case was rejected by the Panel who were not satisfied that the injury complained of was directly attributable to a crime of violence in terms of paragraph 8 (a). The court held that the panel was only obliged to deal with issues raised in front of it and not issues subsequently raised as part of judicial review but which were not pursued before the panel. The reasons given by the panel were sufficiently detailed and explained why the claimant had not been successful. The panel was entitled to reach the decision that it did on the case put before it.
Prargraphs 8, 9, 6, 25, 1996 Scheme
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act Section 11
(See cases 70E, 68E, 60E, 69E, 61E)
Administrative Court Queens Bench Division 23/05/02 (J02) (68E)
R v CICAP re 'JE' (208.43kb)
HW v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
(Reporting to the police or other authority)
The petitioner alleged that she was repeated subject to physical and sexual abuse by her husband. Her claim was rejected by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on the basis that there had been no report to the police and the alleged offender was not prosecuted. The court held that where it was alleged that there had been a report to an appropiate authority (other than the police), more information would be needed than the mere fact that the other person had been told the crimes of violence . The court also set out the correct approach to use in determing issues under paragraph 8(a).
Paragraphs 4, 6, 8, 1990 Scheme
Outer House of the Court of Session - 15/05/02 - I 20 (67E)
HW v CICAP (154.29kb)
R on the application of Matin v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
(Re-opening of a case)
The applicant was injured and suffered a dislocation on his shoulder. The panel made a full award and adjourned the case to determine a case for loss of earnings. The applicant wanted the panel to revisit the issue of the award for the injuries he had suffered and reopen its earlier decision. The court held that the panel's decision was correct on the issue of the injuries and that there was no mechanism for the panel to reopen the question of physical injuries unless the applicant fell within the provisions of paragraphs 56 & 57 of the Scheme.
Paragraphs 56, 57, 64 1996 Scheme
Court of Appeal 06/02/02
Administrative Court 28/11/01 (J10) (66E)
Abdul Matin v CICA C of A 6_2_02 (2.72mb)
Application of Matin v CICA Admin Court 28_11_01 (1.87mb)
R v CICAP ex parte Meloney Ann Gravett
(Weight and credibility of evidence)
The applicant was a nurse who alleged that she had been assaulted by a patient in course of her duties. The panel had two differing accounts of what had happened. The court held that it was for the panel to assess the credibility of the evidence and make findings of fact. The court could only intervene if the panel made errors of law.
Paragraph 8, 10, 16, 17,18, 19,20, 21, 22 and 75 1996 Scheme
The Administrative Court QBD 20/11/01 (I 15) (65E)
R v CICAP ex parte Meloney Ann Gravett (245kb)
R on the application of Lee Mair v the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
(Trespass on the railway - crime of violence)
Child who had no ticket had been asked to leave the train by the conductor. The child jumped back onto the train and fell between the train and the track.
The court held that the applicant, who was the train driver, was not entitled to compensation in terms of the Scheme. The boy who fell under the train had not committed a criminal offence.
Paragraph 4 1990 Scheme
Administrative Court, QBD 05/06/01 I 07 (64E)
R v CICB ex parte Lee Mair (392.40kb)
R on the Application of B v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
(Expert evidence - consideration by panel)
The applicant alleged that he had been sexually abused when in the care of a local authority. The panel had 2 reports from experts who had examined the claimant in relation to the abuse. The court held that if the panel were to disregard expert evidence it required to state why such evidence had been disregarded.
Paragraphs 8 and 13 1996 Scheme
The Administrative Court, QBD 19/12/01 I14 (63E)
R v CICAP ex parte Shields (144.43kb)
R on the application of T v CICB
(Discretion of Panel to reduce an award, onus of proof, weight to be given to the evidence of police officer)
The claimant sustained injury when he was shot in his left leg. He applied for compensation and his claim was rejected on the basis of paragraph 4(a) (Crime of violence) 6(c) (Conduct and Convictions) of the 1990 Scheme. Court held that the Board had given unreasonable weight to the evidence of the police officer who had no part in theinvestigation. The court confirmed that the Board required to give consideration as to whether a reduced award rather than a nil award might be appropiate. The court confirmed that the Board is obliged to give reasons in short form for a decision to reduce or refuse an award which tell the parties in broad terms why they lost or won the case.
Paragraph 6 and 8 of the 1990 Scheme
Administrative Court QBD 19/10/00 l 01 (61E)
R v CICB ex parte 'T' (262.47kb)
R v CICAP ex parte AB
(Consent - crime of violence) - see cases 72E, 70E above)
The Applicants in 2 cases were refused compensation by the Panel on the grounds that whilst they had been victims of a crime they had not been the victims of a crimes of violence. Court of Appeal upheld the Panel's decision. The House of Lords refused consent to allow the applicants to petition the House of Lords.
ECHR articles 6 and 8
Paragraph 8, 9, 13 of the 1996 Scheme
QBD 30/6/00
Court of Appeal 18/12/00 H04 (60E)
R v CICAP ex parte August
[see also Re ‘B’][see also R v CICAP Ex parte ‘JE’] [see also ECHR decision at 70E] Crime of Violence - meaning - de facto consent.Victim under age of consentCrime of Violence - meaning - nomen juris of crime is not conclusive.House of Lords refused consent to allow the applicant to petition the House of Lords on 26 March 2002.Euopean Court of Human Rights, ex gratia scheme applicability of Articles 6 and 8.QBD - 30/06/00 - H 04CofA - 18/12/00(60E)
R v CICAP ex parte August (2.36mb)
R v CICAP ex Parte August 04Nov99 (309.23kb)
R v CICB ex parte Welch
(Test of recklessness)
The alleged offender was a person with learning difficulties, the applicant who was employed as a carer was doing the washing up when the alleged offender pulled him down to give him a hug, the alleged offender was not aggressive and when the applicant cried out in pain he released him immediately. The Panel found that there had been no crime of violence, as they had to consider whether the alleged offender intended to injure the applicant or whether he was reckless in his behaviour. They found the alleged offender merely intended to hug the appplicant and in doing so injured his neck. The applicant was injured by accident.
The court upheld the Panel's decision.
Paragraph 4 of the 1964 (1969 revised) Scheme
Paragraph 4 of the 1990 Scheme
Queen's Bench Division 11/07/00 l 02 (59E)
R v CICB ex parte Welch (102.86kb)
R v CICAP ex parte Bennett
(Disabling - meaning)
The applicant was attacked whilst she was walking to work. She received counselling and medical treatment for her injuries. The Panel made an award to include a sum for Disabling Mental Disorder. The court held that mental disorder was "disabling" if it significantly impaired a person's functioning in some important aspect of his or her life.
See also the case of Embeling (57E below)
Paragraph 25, 26, 58, 60, 75 of the 1996 Scheme
Queen's Bench Division 10/07/00 l 03 (58E)
R v CICAP ex parte Bennett (777.48kb)
R v CICAP and CICA ex parte Embling
(Continuing disability - meaning)
The applicant suffered a broken index finger during an assault. She made a general recovery so as to carry out full duties at work but nevertheless continued to have stiffness and residue loss of movement in her finger. The court held that the phrases " full recovery" and "continuing disability" related to the relevant limb or organ and not to the claimant. The phrases were understood to be carrying their ordinary dictionary meaning. Where there was an observable and measurable loss of faculty which could sensibly be described as "continuing" rather than temporary or short term and that an ordinary person adopting a sensible view of life would not be prepared to agree that there had been a full recovery. The case would be probably one of continuing disability.
Paragraphs 25, 26 of the 1996 Scheme
See case of Bennett (58E above)
Queen's Bench Division 08/07/99 l 04 (55E)
R v CICB ex parte Embling (228.98kb)
R v CICAP ex parte Barry Shawn Carling
(Crime of Violence - Negligence is not sufficient)
The applicant sustained an injury as the result of practical joke played on him by a colleague.
The Panel found that there was no record of a deliberate assault of battery or evidence of recklessness on the part of the assailant. They were not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that those inferencescould be drawn from the facts. The court upheld the Panel's view. A practical joke was not a crime of violence in the absence of subjective recklessness.
The court also commented that there was no requirement of law that the Panel should set out their reason as a fact-finding Tribunal in the way Judges customarily set out evidence.
Queen Bench Division 12/04/00 H 06 (56E)
R v CICAP Ex parte Carling (109.56kb)
R v CICA ex parte Shaun Christopher Salt
(Delay in Reporting - Status of CICA guide)
The applicant was the victim of an assault. The panel refused an award and the appplicant made no complaint to the police at the time of the injury. The applicant did not contact the police again until after he had taken legal advice. The Panel found that the applicant had informed the police promptly but then had failed to co-operate by not informing them that his injuries were more serious than he first thought. the court quashed the decision of the Panel for failing to give reasons why an award would not be appropiate in the face of the indication given in the Guide published by the Authority.
Queen's Bench Division 08/07/99 l 04 (55E)
R v CICB ex parte Salt (218.86kb)
Susan Stuart v the United Kingdom
The applicant was sexually abused by a memeber of her family prior to 1979. Her application for compensation was rejected by the Panel on the basis that she did not fall within paragraph 7(b) of the Criminal Injuries compensation Scheme 1996 which excluded compensation for victims of criminal injuries sustained before October 1979 who were living together as family memebers with their assailant at the time of the incident.
The European court of the Human Rights considered articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention of Human Rights and held that the scope of the positive obligations under articles 3 and 8 did not extend the payment of compensation for injuries caused by criminal acts of private persons.
The Outer House of the Court of session held that the Human Rights Act does not apply retrospectively to Panel decisions.
ECHR - 06/07/99 l 12 (54E)
Court of Session 05/12/02 (J 03)
Susan Stuart v UK (332.79kb)
LC v CICB
(Crime of Violence - nature of crime (indecent exposure)
The applicant gave to the Board that she had witnessed indecent exposure on three occasions. The Board rejected her claim on the basis that ther had been no crime of violence. The court held that the Board had to ask, 1), what had happened? and, 2), whether it was a crime of violence. The Board had adequately explained its decision by the statement and conclusions which they had given.
Court of Session 14/05/99 G 10 (53E)
LC v CICB (769.78kb)
R v CICB ex parte Pearson
(Convictions - discretion quantum, circumstances in which court can interfere)
The applicant was assaulted and applied for criminal injuries compensation. The Board made an award reduced because of his previous convictions. The court upheld the Board's decision to reduce the award and confirmed the Board's quantification of the case. This case sets out circumstances in which the court can interfere with a decision.
Paragraph 6(c) 1990 Scheme
QBD - 11/05/99 - G 11(52E)
R v CICB ex parte Pearson (251.80kb)
R v CICB ex parte Moore
(Convictions - when a case can be reopened after a hearing?)
The applicant received an award which was reduced because of his convictions. The case was referred to a single member for quantification. In the interim period the applicant sustained a new conviction and the single member referred the matter back to a full board.
The court held that the Board was the master of its own procedure. A single member where a new conviction had been raised was entitled to refer the matter back to a full board.
Paragraphs 22, 25, 6(c) 1990 Scheme
Court of Appeal 23/4/99 H 02 (51E)
R v CICB ex parte Moore (221.94kb)
R v CICB ex parte Keane and Marsden
(Motor Insurers Bureau Agreement - Paragraph 11 of 1990 Scheme)
Two applicants who were injured in separate incidents by motor vehicles which were not been driven on public roads. In each case the Board refused to make an award relying on the terms of Paragraph 11 of the 1990 Scheme which provides compensation for personal injury which was attributable to traffic offence where there was a deliberate attempt run the victim down. The Court upheld the Boards refusal to grant compensation, finding the terms of Paragraph 11 of the 1990 Scheme were clear. It was recognised that this would cause a lacuna where victims in certain circumstances would not be compensated by the Motor Insurers Bureau nor the Criminal Injuries compensation Scheme but the Court considered that the remedy lay with Parliament to resolve the issue in whatever way they saw fit.
Paragraph 11 and 4 (a) of the 1990 Scheme
Court of Appeal 29/10/97 - E12 (50E)
R v CICB ex parte Marsden (254.08kb)
R v CICB ex parte AP
(Boards obligations in investigating claims, Judicial Review delay in applying)
The applicant sought compensation claiming that she had been assaulted raped and buggered in the course of a buglary. Her application was refused by the CICB. She applied outside the time limits for a judicial review of the Board's decision. There were three questions which required to be answered. 1) Should her application for Judicial Review have been allowed to proceed since she was long out of time in applying? 2) If it should, were there grounds for setting aside the decision of the Board; c) If there were, is it right now to set aside the decision and to send it back for further consideration.. The decision in this case stands on the facts and circumstances of the case and the civil procedure rules at the date of the decision. The court found that it is in the ordinary way for the applicant to produce the evidence. There is no onus on the Board to go out to look for evidence, nor does the Board have a duty to adjourn the case for further enquiries if the applicant does not ask for one.
1990 Scheme
House of Lords 25/03/99 - l 05 (49E)
R v CICB ex parte AP (703.29kb)
R v the Secretary of State of the Home Department and the CICA ex parte C
(Multiple offences treated as a single incident)
The Applicant alleged that she had been subjected to protacted sexual assaults by 5 men. She identified at least 10 individual assaults carried out by the 5 men either individually or together. She made a single application for compensation which was rejected by the Authority. After the rejection of further 12 applications were made in respect of each alleged separate incident of violence. The Authority rejected the application confirming that the Authority's view was the incident was one single incident and separate applications were inappropiate. The Court concluded that the decision of the Authority to treat the 10 sexual assaults that the single incident was not irrational or otherwise lawful. It was not unlawful for the Secretary of State to set one level of award for multiple sex attacks.
No copy of judgement available
R v CICB ex parte Bayram
(Oral hearing; Applicant unaware of right to apply)
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board made an award which the Applicant accepted. The Applicant then claimed that he was unaware of his right to call for an oral hearing. He expressed dissatisfaction with the award and was advised that the only circumstances in which the Board could re-open the matter where a final award has been made and accepted was if there had been a serious change in his medical condition. Despite the fact that the Applicant claimed to have been unaware of his right to request an oral hearing, it was, the Court found it too late for the Applicant to make that request after accepting the final award.
1990 Scheme
QBD - 01/12/98 - H09 (46A)
R v CICB ex parte Bayram (61.21kb)
Gray v CICB
(Bigamy - not a crime of violence)
The Applicant claimed that the realisation that she had married a bigamist had a devastating effect on her and had she known that he was already married she would never had entered a relationship with him. She calimed that she had sustained a crime of violence in so far that it was alleged that her consent to sexual intercourse had been obtained by deception.
The Court found the crime committed was one of fraud and that there was no crime of violence.
1990 Scheme
The Inner House Court of Session 28/10/98
The Outer House Court of Session 13/05/92 C05 (45E)
Gray v CICB (340.91kb)
R v CICB ex parte SDL
(Prior to judicial finding does not bind the Board)
The Applicant was badly crushed when one of the gates of a primary school fell on him. An unidentified person had removed the gate from its hinges and left it in its normal position but resting against the gate post and the kerb where it was precariously balanced. The Board rejected the Applicant's claim. The Judge in the civil case had decided that the act of placing the gate in the position that had been caused by the vandals. The Board did not agree with that decision. The Board had to decide who had taken the gate off its hinges and why. Whoever left the gate off its hinges would require to have done so withthe intent to harm another or been reckless whilst appreciating the risks as to the consequences of his actions. The Court held that the Board did correctly ask itself the appropiate question and the Board were entitled to find that the question could not be answered on the balance of probabilities from the whole of material before it.
Paragraph 4(a) of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 14/10/98 G05 - (44E)
R v CICB ex parte Lumb (237.96kb)
R v CICB ex parte J Cowan (Conduct - enough to justify a refusal - onus of proof)
The Applicant had been injured in what was described as a violent encounter with his fiancee. The Board refused an award holding that the Applicant had failed to prove that the assailant was not acting in self defence and that he had been pushed by his fiancee. The Court concluded that there was no relevant evidence to raise an issue of self defence and the Board refusal to make an award was quashed.
Paragraph 6 (c) and 4 (a) of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 11/06/98 - G 04 (43E)
R v CICB ex parte Cowan (263.32kb)
R v CICB ex parte Hilary Kent & Gordon Milne (Directly attributable - secondary victims)
The Applicants were the mother and step father of a child who had been abused by her step grandfather. Both applicants suffered a reactive depression as a result of been told of the abuse and applied for compensation. Their applications were rejected as the Board found that the injuries which they suffered were not directly attributable to a crime of violence. The Court upheld the Boards decision finding that proximity was relevant to the question of whether the injury was directly attributable, as opposed to indirectly attributable to the crime. the closer in time and place the secondary victim is to a commission of a crime of violence, the more likely it is any personal injury suffered by him or her as a result of being told about the crime will be directly attributable to it.
Paragraph 4 of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 06/03/98 - G01 - (42E)
R v CICB ex parte Kent and Milne (326.95kb)
R v CICB ex-parte JM/BM
(Person responsible - means criminally responsible)
The Applicant was abused as a child by her mother and step father, the Board rejected the case under Paragraph 7 of the 1990 Scheme on the basis that they were not satisfied that there was no possibility that any person responsible for the injuries would not benefit. The Court decided that Paragraph 7 did require criminal responsibility for the Applicant's injuries and quashed the Board's decision finding that the evidence in this case did not all point in one direction. The Board failed to consider whether an award could be made in relation to the abuse inflicted on the Applicant other than by her mother.
Paragraph 7 of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 28/11/97 - G12
Court of Appeal -07/12/98/H01 (41E)
R v CICB ex parte Brown-Murphy (553.32kb)
R v CICB ex parte JM B-M (312.09kb)
R v CICB ex parte Keane & Marsden
(Traffic offence - Meaning - MIB)
Two Applicants were injured in separate incidents by motor vehicles not then been driven on a public road. Cases were rejected under Paragraph 11 of the Scheme. The central issue before the Court was the construction to be placed on Paragraph 11. The Court held that the words of Paragraph 11 were unclear and ambiguous. The fact that compensation was not available from MIB did not mean that it would therefore be available from the Criminal Injuries Scheme. Ot was recognised that there was a lacuna between the entitlement under the MIB agreement on one hand and the Criminal Injuries Compensation on the other; it would be for Parliament toresolve this lacuna in whatever way it saw fit.
Paragraph 4 and 11 of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 27/10/97 - E 12 (40E)
R v CICB ex parte Keane and Marsden (172.84kb)
R v CICB ex parte CV
(Co-operating with police; partial disclosure)
The Applicant applied for compensation in relation to alleged crimes of assault, rape, buggery and false imprisonment. There had been a prosecution in relation to the complaint of an assault but more serious allegations were never intimated to the police. The Board rejected the application as they had doubts about the Applicant's credibility regarding the more serious allegations. The Board confirmed that even if they had believed the allegations an award would have been withheld in account of the Applicants failure to inform the police of the full details of the offences. The Court held that the Board was entitled to arrive at its finding based on the evidence before it.
Paragraph 4 of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 09/10/97 G02 (39E)
R v CICB ex parte CV (69.70kb)
R v CICB ex parte SD
(Rape – lack of consent – victim intoxicated)
The Applicant sought a Judicial Review on the decision of the Board for refusing her claim for compensation on the grounds that the Board was not satisfied that she had not consented to sexual intercourse with 3 men, she alleged that had raped her when she was drunk. The Court held that the Board had considered the evidence on the facts and circumstances and had not been unreasonable in finding that the Applicant was not so drunk that she could not have consented to intercourse.
1990 Scheme
04/06/97 -G07- (38E)
R v CICB ex parte SD (188.44kb)
R v CICB ex parte D K Mattison
(Co-operation with the Board – obligation to disclose material information)
The Applicant was injured in an incident of domestic violence . After making a claim for compensation she resumed cohabitation with the offender for a brief period, but did not disclose this fact to the Board. The Board refused an award of compensation. The Court upheld the Board's view.
Court of Appeal - 24/04/97 - B 08 (37E)
R v CICB ex parte Mattison (339.75kb)
P's Curator Bonis v CICB
(Genetic defects - personal injury?)
The Applicant was a child born as a result of an act of incestuous sexual intercourse. The child had a congenital defect resulting directly from the blood relationship of her parents. An application to the CICB was rejected on the basis that the congenital defect cannot be said to be personal injurywithin the meaning of this scheme; even the defects were attributable to the genetic makeup of her parents rather than to any crime of violence. The Court held that dealing with the question of causation it ought to adopt a common sense approach and consider that the birth of the child and its subsequent disabilities were both directly attributable to the same criminal act . It could not be said that the foetus and the offender were living together at the time the crime was committed. The Court however found that the injuries suffered by the Applicant could not be seen as "personal injury" was in the meaning of the 1969 Scheme. The Board upheld the Board's decision.
Paragraph 5 and 10 of the Revised 1969 Scheme
The Court of Sessions and House of Lords - 13/11/96 F05
P's Curator Bonis v CICB (1.24mb)
R v CICB ex parte D P Richardson
The Applicant was a child injured by his mother's cohabite. The Board refused an award on the basis that the Applicant and the offender were living together as a member of the same family. The alleged offender was not the child's father. The court upheld the decision of the Board confirming that there did not require to be a blood relationship for the Applicant to be a member of the same family as his assailant.
Paragraph 7 of the 1967 Scheme
QBD - 11/03/96 - E 02 (35E)
R v CICB ex parte Richardson (279.80kb)
R v CICB ex parte Reid
(Delay in reporting the Boards discretion)
The Applicant had reported an assault to the police 3 days after she had been assaulted. She explained that she had been shocked by the assault and thought that someone else would have called the police. The Board refused the award and the Court upheld the Board's decision holding that it was open to the Board in the exercise of its judgement to refuse an application for compensation.
Paragraph 6(a) of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 04/03/96 - B 15 (34E)
R v CICB ex parte Reid (166.88kb)
R v CICB Ex parte J F Delarmi
(Personal injury – pre-1964 excluded)
Time limit – waiver.
The Applicant made an application for a serious physical and sexual abuse. The attack happened in 1958 and the Applicant applied for compensation in 1994. The Board refused to waive the 3 year time limit imposed by the Scheme. The Court upheld the Board's decision finding that the Board required to consider first whether there were exceptional circumstances under which the time limit could be raised and secondly whether the 3 year ban could be waived.
QBD - 22/02/96 -F06 - (33E)
R v CICB Ex parte Delarmi (129.23kb)
R v CICB ex-parte K Milton
(Burden of proof)
The Applicant applied for criminal injuries compensation on the basis of abuse which she sustained between 7 to 13 in and around 1956. From then until 1985 she had been for most part a patient in a psychiatric hospital. The Chairman of the Board decided to waive the time limit but stated that he rejected the claim on the basis that the allegations were never reported to the police. A full board also rejected the claim stating that the burden of proof was on the Applicant and they were not satisfied that she was a victim of a crime of violence.
The Court upheld the decision of the Board confirming that it was not the duty of the Board to look for evidence but rather the duty, if it had material in its possession to make sure that the Applicant was appraised of it before the Board relied on it. The Court confirmed that it was for the Applicant to make out her case and it would be opened to the Board to disbelieve her without there being a specific evidence in contradiction of her case.
Paragraphs 4, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 30/11/95- (D11) (32E)
R v CICB ex parte Milton (275.93kb)
R v CICB ex parte Hopper
(Convictions of preliminary issue)
The Applicant was refused compensation on the basis of his convictions. The Court upheld the Board's decision finding the question to be posed was ' is the Applicant an appropiate recipient of an ex gratia compensation made at the public expense?'
Paragraph 6 of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 07/07/95 - D 04 (31E)
R v CICB ex parte Hopper (598.95kb)
R v CICB ex parte 'D'
(Time limit - waiver - sexual offences - relevance of conviction of offender)
The Applicant was the victim of abuse by her father. A conviction resulted in 1990 and then the Applicant reported the matter. She had felt unable to report the abuse until she was 30 years of age. The Board refused her claim for compensation on the basis that the Applicant was living together with her assailant of the time of the injury. The Applicant then made an application for sexual abuse that she allegedly suffered by her grandfather. There was no prosecution in this case, the claim was rejected being outside the requisite 3 year limit. The Court upheld the Board's decision finding that the Board was entilted to take account of all the facts and likely consequences of the delay.
QBD - 06/06/95 - D 02 (30E)
R v CICB ex parte 'D' (488.58kb)
R v CICB ex parte Scott
Delay in reporting effect on prosecution relevant factor but not decisive.
QBD - 24/03/95 - D 08 (29E)
No copy of judgement available
R v CICB ex parte Thomas
Convictions - unrelated to injury
Convictions - reopening after eligibility decision
QBD - 18/10/94 - C 14 (28E)
R v CICB ex parte Thomas (190.39kb)
R v CICB ex parte Johnson
Directly attributable - meaning
Psychiatric injury - distinguished from shock/distress.
Psychiatric injury - foreseeability.
QBD - 20/07/94 - D 09
(27E)
R v CICB ex parte Johnson (226.06kb)
R v Secretary of State ex parte RP & TG
Family violence - carrying forward of pre-1979 rule.
QBD, CofA - 04/05/94 - C 09
(26E)
R v Secretary of State ex parte RP and TG (691.84kb)
R v CICB ex parte Williams
Conduct - provocation - possible counter to COWAN.
QBD - 21/04/93 - G 07
(25E)
R v CICB ex parte Williams (101.27kb)
Craig & Others v CICB
Crime of Violence - nature of crime.
CofS - 10/12/92 - F 01
(24E)
Craig and Others v CICB (198.95kb)
R v CICB ex parte 'A'
Time limit - refusal of waiver - sexual abuse.
QBD - 20/02/92 - G 07
(23E)
R v CICB ex parte A (136.33kb)
R v CICB ex parte Wilson
Time limit refusal of waiver. Abuse.
QBD - 05/02/91 - C 03
(22E)
R v CICB ex parte Wilson (85.19kb)
59. R v CICB ex parte Commerford
Conduct - seriousness of injury is irrelevant.
QBD - 19/06/90 - C 02
(21E)
R v CICB ex parte Commerford (346.09kb)
R v CICB ex parte Emmett
Exceptional risk.
QBD - 16/12/88 - E 09
(19E)
R v CICB ex parte Emmett (195.90kb)
R v CICB ex parte Sorrell
Onus of proof.
QBD - 02/03/87 - E 08
(18E)
R v CICB ex parte Sorrell (139.34kb)
R v CICB ex parte Warner & Others
Crime of violence - nature not consequences.
QBD - 18/08/85 - B 13
CofA - 08/05/86 - B 15
(17E)
R v CICB ex parte Warner and Others (600.13kb)
R v CICB ex parte Thompstone & Crowe
Convictions - unrelated to injury.
Reported: (CA): (1984) 1 WLR 1234 (1984) 3 A11 ER 572.
CofA - 02/10/84 - B 11, B 12
(16E)
R v CICB ex parte Thompstone and Crowe (350.93kb)
R v CICB ex parte Parsons (Frank)
Directly attributable - meaning - 'substantial cause' - foreseeability not relevant.
CofA - 19/11/82 - A 19
QBD - 19/05/81
(15E)
R v CICB ex parte Parsons (Frank) (874.64kb)
R v CICB Ex parte Blood
Convictions - as a preliminary issue.
QBD - 11/05/82 - B 06
18/11/82
(14E)
R v CICB Ex parte Blood (54.86kb)
R v CICB Ex parte Cragg
Conduct - dangerous games.
Hearing - consideration de novo.
Inferior tribunal - subpoena in aid of.
QBD - 23/04/82 - B 05
(13E)
R v CICB Ex parte Cragg (71.46kb)
R v CICB ex parte Penny
Preventing offence - meaning - narrow construction.
QBD - 25/01/82 - B 02
CofA - 18/11/82 - B 08
(12E)
R v CICB ex parte Penny (343.70kb)
R v CICB Ex parte Crangle
Onus of proof - excluding self-defence (see also Cowan and Williams).
Reported: The Times, 14/11/81.
QBD - 06/11/81 - B 01
(11E)
R v CICB Ex parte Crangle (422.57kb)
R v CICB Ex parte Carr
Preventing offence - continuing offence.
QBD - 10/07/80 - A 16
(10E)
R v CICB Ex parte Carr (94.99kb)
R v CICB ex parte Lloyd
Onus of proof - conduct issue.
QBD - 04/07/80 - A 15
(9E)
R v CICB ex parte Lloyd (378.33kb)
R v CICB ex parte Clowes
Crime of violence - meaning.
QBD - 30/03/77 - A 12
(8E)
R v CICB ex parte Clowes (2.59mb)
R v CICB ex parte Ince
Directly attributable - meaning conduct - bad conduct or misconduct, preventing offence - subjective test.
Unpublished policy of Board - to be disclosed when relevant.
CofA - 20/07/73 -A 07
(7E)
R v CICB ex parte Ince (342.52kb)
R v CIC ex parte Lawton
Meaning of offender
QBD - 22/06/72 - A 06
(6E)
R v CIC ex parte Lawton (225.32kb)
R v CICB ex parte Fox
Living together in the same family - meaning.
QBD - 08/02/72 - A 05
(5E)
R v CICB ex parte Fox (180.32kb)
R v CICB ex parte Staten
R v CICB ex parte Staten (144.92kb)
R v CICB ex parte Townend
Co-operation with police - request no prosecution.
QBD - 09/06/70 - D 15 (2E)
R v CICB ex parte Townend (100.21kb)
R v CICB ex parte Dayman
On convictions of deceased in fatal cases.
No copy of judgement available.
(1E)
Sacha Marie Muir v CICAP
(Convictions - CICAP's discretion)
Attachment Muir v CICAP (484.94kb)
S v CICB etc and the Advocate General
( Application of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to paragraph 7(b) of the 1996 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.)
The Petitioner had been abused by her father prior to 1979 when she was 4 years of age. The petition was raised seeking a declarator that paragraph 7(b) of the 1996 Scheme was incompatible with the Human rights set out in the ECHR Articles 6 and Article 1 of Protocol no1 both taken with Article 14.
The Court held that Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 were not engaged and as a consequence Article 14 was not engaged. The Court then considered what the effect would be if Article 6 and 1 were engaged and as a consequence Article 14 was engaged , it considered the wider issues of "legitimate aim", "proportionate response" and concluded that there had not been discrimination under Article 14.
ECHR Articles 6, 14 and article 1 of Protocol 1
Paragraph 7(b) of the 1996 Scheme
Paragraph 8 of the 1979 Scheme
Outer House of the Court of Session 08/07/04 J16 (79E)
Raja Arshad Mahmood v CICAP
(Conviction after first hearing - Panel should not have dismissed.)
The claimant was kidnapped and had his throat cut and was hit with a hammer repeatedly. At the initial panel hearing eligibility was found to be satisfied and an interim award made. CICA were asked to obtain medical reports and the Appellant to quantify a loss of earnings claim.
At the adjourned hearing it was revealed that the Appellant had been convicted of benefit fraud in the intervening period, for which he had been fined and also making a false application for a mortgage for which there had not been any criminal charge. The second panel found it inappropriate to make any award relying upon paragraph 13(e) of the 2001 Scheme.
McCombe J allowed the JR application and remitted the application back to another panel to hear. He found that the panel decision was irrational as it appeared that a reduction in the award appeared the proper course was that which the panel should have taken as the guidelines for such a conviction had not been applied.
Paragraphs 13(e) of the 2001 Scheme
Administrative Court - 18/11/05 EWHC/2005/2919
Mahmood v CICAP (414kb)
Sacha Marie Muir v CICAP
(Convictions - CICAP's discretion.)
The claimant was the victim of sexual abuse and by the time her appeal came on for hearing she had numerous convictions. The Panel made a reduced award. She applied for Judicial Review, when the Panel was ordered to re-hear the case.
By the time her appeal was re-heard she had amassed further convictions and her claim was rejected in its entirety.
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding there was no reasonable prospect of success.
Potter LJ confirmed the Panel had a wide discretion in paragraph 13(e) cases. He also said the normal consequences of a bad criminal record can be mitigated by a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, there is a causal connection between the abuse and criminality. But where further criminal acts are committed after the commencement of the proceedings there is less scope for mitigation.
Paragraphs 13(e) of the 1996 Scheme
Court of Appeal - 12/10/04 CI/2004/1122
Muir v CICAP (485 kb)
R (on the application of “B” who acts by his litigation friend PW) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel
(Future provision by a Local Authority)
Under the 1990 Scheme, the claimant had to show what his reasonable needs were and propose the way in which they should be satisfied; it was then for the defendant to show that the claimant was making an unreasonable demand, either because he didn´t reasonably require the provision he desired, or because the cost of such reasonable provision would be defrayed in whole or in part by provision by a Local Authority.
Paragraph 12 of the 1990 Scheme
QBD -14/02/07
