Category listing
Procedure
R v CICA on the application of ‘M’ v CICA
(Delay in dealing with an application by CICA)
The applicant suffered severe brain damage as a result of non-accidental shaking by one of his natural parents. An application for Judicial Review was brought against the CICA on the basis that the conduct of the claim by the Authority had been subject of unreasonable and irrational, caused or contributed to by the Authority seeking to obtain extraneous or irrelevant information which on the facts of the case would not advance the determination of the Applicant. The Court upheld the Applicant's claim finding that the delay by the Authority were unreasonable and irrational, but no compensation for the day was ordered.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995
Paragraph 1, 13, 18, 19, 23, 25, 35, 45 1996 Scheme
QBD - 11/11/02 - J04 (42P)
The Queen on the Application of M v CICA 
(147kb)
R v CICAP on the application of DB v CICAP
(Sufficiency of reasons. Inquisitorial not adversarial)
The applicant suffered massive brain damage as a result of non-accidental injury in infancy. He was totally dependent on others in all matters of daily living. The Panel granted full award including a sum for future care. The Applicant raised an application for Judicial Review claiming an error of law by the Panel in relation to the valuation of the cost of care. The Court upheld that the Panel's decision finding that the award of damages to cover the cost of future care depended on whether, when and for how long that the cost would be incurred. It was necessary for the Panel to determine whether and when the Applicant's mother would be able to care for him.
1990 Scheme
QBD Admin Court - 24/04/02 -I 17- (41P)
R v CICAP on the application of DB (174kb)
R on the application of O'Neill v CICAP
(Grounds for re-hearing)
The Panel refused to grant a re-hearing in a case where the Applicant did not attend the hearing but had been represented by his father. The Applicant had authorised his father to represent him and had advised the Panel that he would not attend the hearing. The Applicant sought Judicial Review of the Panel's decision not to grant a hearing in these circumstances. The Court upheld the Panel's decision and confirmed that the terms of Paragraph 79 were plain and did not enable an Applicant to seek a re-hearing in these circumstances.
Paragraphs 73, 74, 75, 78, 79 of the 1990 Scheme
Admin Court - 15/03/02 - J01 (40P)
R v CICAP ex parte O'Neill (64kb)
R on the application of CICAP Hudson v CICAP
(Should account be taken of the decision in linked cases)
The Applicant's husband was killed in a fracas outside a shop. The Applicant made a claim for compensation which was granted by the Authority but reduced by 1/3rd. The Applicant failed to provide information requested by the Authority and no determination was made in respect of the quantification of damages. The Applicant applied fro an oral hearing before the Panel who rejected the case and made no award. The Court upheld the Panel's decision finding that they had complete discretion as to their decision. The Applicant had chosen to challenge the original determination by the Authority and the fact that other linked applications had been successful before the Authority did not bind the Panel in any way.
1996 Scheme
QBD - 08/02/02 - I16 - (39P)
R v CICAP ex parte Hudson (80kb)
R v B J Strettle
(Disclosure of material held by CICA)
The Court referred to the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 and confirmed that there were 2 hurdles to be overcome namely:-
1. For a document to be produced the Court must think it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice.
2. Any such document can only be produced if the production of that document appears necessary to the Court for the determination of the case.
Note this judgement pre-dates the Freedom Of Information and Data Protection Acts
Court of Appeal - 05/10/01 - I 13(38P)
R v Strettle (67kb)
R on the application of John Rawstron v CICAP
(Treating doctor's evidence preferred to that of psychiatrist instructed for the purposes of CIC claim)
The Applicant was injured in a raid which took place at a petrol station. The Panel made a full award and the Applicant sought a Judicial Review of the Panel's decision arguing that the award should have been higher. The Applicant's GP had issued a report stating that approximately 6 months after the incident the Applicant had shown no further symptoms. The Applicant had attended a Consultant Psychiatrist 18 months after the incident for specifically for the purpose of a medical legal report.
The report stated that the Applicant had sustained significant distress for at least 9 months after the original injury. The Panel preferred the evidence of the GP to that of the psychiatrist. The Court upheld the Panel's decision finding that the Panel was entitled to accept such evidence as there was from the general practitioner as against the evidence from the psychiatrist which it appeared to the Court to largely if not wholly based on what the Applicant had told the psychiatrist.
1996 Scheme
QBD -03/10/01 - I09 - (37P)
R v CICAP ex parte John Rawstron (102kb)
R v CICAP ex parte M
(Failure to give adequate reasons).
The Applicant was a victim of sexual abuse and the Panel made an award was reduced to take account of the Applicant's convictions. The Applicant raised an application for a Judicial Review alleging that the Panel had failed to give proper reasons to support the conclusion that it reached. The Court held that the Panel required to give proper, sufficient and intelligible reasons in the interests of transparency and openness and quashed the Panel's decision.
1990 Scheme
QBD - 31/08/01 - I 10(36P)
R v CICAP ex parte M (244kb)
R v CICA ex parte Wayne Lee Leatherland, and R v CICB ex parte Gwendoline Mary Bramall & R v CICAP ex parte Timothy George Kay
(Police information - disclosure.Decision - reasons - adequacy).
Three applications for Judicial Review were brought against the CICB, CICA, CICAP in relation to the way in which the three organisations should respond to request for evidence upon which they relied for the purpose of arriving at a decision and a duty to provide reasons and support of those decisions. The Court held that there was no blanket public interest immunity in respect of statements made by the the witnesses. It confirmed that the CICB, CICA and CICAP had a duty to give reasons or proper sufficient, and intelligible and confirmed that an Applicant should be provided in advanceof the day of the hearing with access to the evidential material which would be used during the hearing.
1990 and 1996 Scheme
QBD - 21/07/00 - H 07(35P)
R v CICB ex parte Leatherland, Bramall and Kay (386kb)
R D Jamieson v CICB
(On Judicial Review - court will not interfere in the fact finding function of the Panel unless the decision was unreasonable)
The Board refused to make an award of compensation to an Applicant who though had been convicted of an assault upon his assailant, was an absolute discharge in respect of the matter. The Board had before it a number of witnesses and medical reports. The Court upheld the Board's decision finding that they had given clear and specific reasons for not being satisfied that a full or reduced award should be made.
1990 Scheme
Court of Session - 12/11/99 - H11 (34P)
Jamieson v CICB (54kb)
R v CICA ex parte Thompson
(Weight to be given to each piece of evidence)
The Applicant sustained injury as a result of being assaulted at a party. He raised an action for Judicial review claiming that the Panel had erred witholding award on the basis thathe did not co-operate with the Police. The Court upheld the Panel's decision concluding that it is for the Panel who hear it that oral evidence to make relevant findings of fact and to assess the weight to be given to each piece of evidence and the creditability of witnesses. The Court can only interfere with a decision if the Panel errs in law.
Paragraphs 8 and 13 of the 1996 Scheme
QBD - 01/03/99 - I 08(33P)
R v CICA ex parte Thompson (205kb)
J Stensland v CICB
(Medical reopening - Chairman's discretion - 'Wednesbury')
The Applicant accepted an award for compensation in 1998. Thereafter she applied to re-open her application. The Chairman of the Board rejected her request for re-opening. The Court upheld the Chairman's decision confirming that it is clear that what does or not constitute serious change for thae purposes of the Paragraph, is very much a matter of degree.
1990 Scheme
Court of Session - 17/01/98 - F08(32P)
Stensland v CICB (72kb)
R v CICB Ex parte Catterall
( Board Members can rely on their own experience but must give applicant/representative proper opportunity to answer).
The Board made an award of compensation to a minor Applicant. An application for Judicial Review was raised on the basis of the words contained within the Board's Witten Reasons being that there was a reliance by the Board on certain conlusions which undermined the factual and expert material evidence lodged with the Board on the Applicant's behalf. The Court quashed the Board's decision confirming that the Board are entitled to rely on their own experience and expertise in discharging their duty, however it was incumbent upon the Board to advise the Applicant of their intention or inclination to do so and invite the matter to be addressed by the Applicant or his representative in whatever fashion he saw fit.
1990 Scheme
QBD - 06/11/96 - F 09(31P)
No copy of judgement available
R v CICB ex parte Dickson
(Material facts or conclusions. Discretion to refuse hearing even where there is a dispute on the facts).
The Applicant who had convictions, was himself assaulted and robbed from outside a public house on two occasions. He made two applications for compensation, one of which resulted in an award being reduced as a result of his convictions. The case before the Court concerned the construction of paragraph 24(c) (of the 1990 Scheme) as it applies to criminal convictions. The Court held that the Applicant's compaint related to the decision that an award should not be made in one of the cases and in the Court's judgement that was not in itself an appropiate justification for an oral hearing within paragraph 24 of the Scheme.
Paragraph 24 of the 1990 Scheme
Court of Appeal - 01/07/96 - F07-(30P)
R v CICB ex parte Dickson (369kb)
R v CICB ex parte J P Cook
(Convictions of deceased, applicant having none). Decision reasons need not be exhaustive.
The Applicant was refused compensation as a result of the character of her deceased husband as shown by his criminal convictions. The Court upheld the Board's decision noting that it was entitled to decide that no award was appropiate having regard to the character of the deceased and that the reasons given were in the view of the Court adequate even though they did not refer to the character of the Applicant.
Paragraphs 6(c), 15 and 24 of the 1990 Scheme
Court of Appeal - 18/12/95- D07 - (29P)
R v CICB Ex parte Cook (887kb)
R v CICB ex parte A (AP)
(Delay in applying proper procedure investigations of claims Board's obligations)
The Applicant claimed for compensation claiming that in the course of a burglary that she was assaulted, raped and buggered, her application was refused by the Board. The Applicant raised an application for Judicial Review. The Court found there was no duty on the Board to look for evidence, this being a matter for the Applicant to take the initiative. It was for the Board to bring out all the relevant evidence in the Board's possession whether it was for or against the Applicant.
1990 Scheme
QBD - 15/12/95 -D10- Court of Appeal- 16/05/97- House of Lords- 25/03/99- (28P)
R v CICB ex parte A (AP) (218kb)
R v CICB ex Parte Avraam (158kb)
S Young v CICB
The Applicant was assaulted and stabbed, he made an application for criminal injuries compensation which was rejected. The Applicant applied for an oral hearing setting out his reasons and this application was refused. The Applicant raised an action for Judicial Review arguing that a refusal for oral hearing was a denial of natural justice. The Court rejected an application for judicial review on the basis that the argument failed to distiguish between the right to a hearing and a right to be heard; the opportunity to apply for a hearing and give reasons was a sufficient right to be heard.
Paragraghs 22, 23 and 24 of the 1990 Scheme
Out of House Court of Session - 09/08/95 D05 (27P)
Young v CICB (304kb)
Rae v CICB
(Judicial Review - error of law - distinction between ultra vires error and intra vires error).
The Applicant was granted an award for compensation at an oral hearing . The Applicant challenged the decision on the grounds that the assessment of the evidence by the Board was tainted by error of law.
The Court held that the Board was subject to Judicial Review on the ground of error of law only if the error was one which involved the Board acting in a way which it had no power to act or refusing to act on the grounds that it had no power to do so in circumstances which it was entitled to act. The Court also found that once there was relevant material before a tribunal of fact, it was possible to reach a wrong conclusion on the evidence before it without acting unreasonably. Finally the Court found that it was not open to Judicial Review the merits of a decision on a matter of fact.
Paragraghs 4, 12, 22 and 23 of the 1990 Scheme
Out of Court Session - 07/07/95 G 08 (26P)
Rae v CICB (276kb)
R v CICB ex parte Singh (Amrick)
(Refusal of oral hearing)
The Applicant applied for compensation in relation to two assaults which he had sustained whilst in prison. He applied for an oral hearing of his case, his request for an oral hearing was rejected. The Court quashed the board of decision. It was revealed by the Applicant in his submissions to the CICB that he had been a police informer and that it was because of this that he had been assaulted whilst in prison. The Court found that the circumstance was so special that it was inevitable that consideration must have been regarded as relevant to the decision to refuse an oral hearing.
QBD - 25/05/95 - G07 - (25P)
R v CICB ex parte Singh Amrick (164kb)
R v CICB ex parte Jobson
(Decision - reasons - adequacy)
The Applicant was a vistim of an unprovoked assault, his case proceeded before an oral hearing before the Board who disallowed the application on the basis that the Applicant had not reported the incident as soon as possible. The Applicant raised an application for Judicial Review alleging that the Board had failed to follow the proper chain of reasonings. The Court found that there were three steps which the Board should follow:-
(a) Did the Applicant take steps without delay or reasonable steps to inform the police of the circumstances of the injury incorporate with the police in bringing the offender to justice?
(b) If so, should the compensation be withheld or reduced.
(c) What award if any should the Applicant consequently receive?
The Court held that the reasons given by the Board must be sufficient to enable the Applicant to see the factual basis on which the relevant conclusion has been arrived at, and what considerations have been taken into account. In the Court's judgement it was not enough to say the Board took into account all the circumstances of the case.
1990 Scheme
QBD - 04/05/95 - D01 - (24P)
R v CICB ex parte Jobson (365kb)
R v Secretary of State ex parte FBU
Non-statutory tariff scheme unlawfully introduced.HL - 05/04/95 - E 11(23P)
R v Secretary of State ex parte FBU (3.81mb)
R v CICB ex parte Garner
Board's files - confidentiality/P11.Discretion - different results on similar facts.NB - PRE-DATES DATA PROTECTION & FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.QBD - 27/03/95 - E 04(22P)
R v CICB ex parte Garner (241kb)
R v CICB ex parte Cobb
Decision - reasons - adequacy - findings of fact hearing - refusal of adjournment hearing - documentary evidence - opportunity to cross-examine.QBD - 26/07/94 - C 13(21P)
R v CICB ex parte Cobb (527kb)
R v CICB ex parte Maxted
Convictions - unrelated to injury.Decision - reasons - matters need not be spelled out.Decision - reasons - to be read as a whole.QBD - 08/07/94 - C 11(20P)
R v CICB ex parte Maxted (182kb)
R v CICB ex parte Aston
Judicial Review - discretionary refusal of relief.Dispute as to 'material facts or conclusions'.QBD - 16/06/94 - C 10(19P)
R v CICB ex parte Aston (334kb)
R v CICB ex parte Gambles
Discretion - rational and proportionate nexus.BUT SEE COOK.QBD - 03/12/93 - C 08(18P)
R v CICB ex parte Gambles (211kb)
R v CICB ex parte Barrett
Deductions - insurance policy - joint names.Fatal award - apportionment.QBD - 19/11/93 - C 07(17P)
R v CICB ex parte Barrett (220kb)
R v CICB ex parte Pearce
Limit of Board’s duty to assist unrepresented applicant.QBD - 05/11/93 - G 07(16P)
R v CICB ex parte Pearce (158kb)
R v CICB ex parte Powell
Decision - reasons - adequacy.Discretion - not to be fettered.QBD - 16/07/93 - C 06(15P)
R v CICB ex parte Powell (472kb)
Tempelton v CICB
Hearing - applicant's right to be represented - Board's power to control.CofS - 02/10/92 - F04(14P)
Tempelton v CICB (127kb)
R v CICB ex parte Cummins
Decisions - reasons - adequacyQBD - 17/01/92 - C 04(13P)
R v CICB ex parte Cummins (509kb)
R v CICB ex parte Parsons (Mary)
Investigation - Board's obligations.QBD - 17/01/90 - C 01(12P)
R v CICB ex parte Parsons (Mary) (340kb)
R v CICB ex parte Gould
Hearing - refusal of adjournment.Police information - statements - disclosure.QBD - 16/02/89 - E 10(11P) R v CICB ex parte Gould
R v CICB ex parte Gould (265kb)
R v CICB ex parte Brown
Judicial Review not an appeal, proper approach. Medical reopening, Chairman's decision.QBD - 12/11/87 - A 10(10P)
R v CICB ex parte Brown (131kb)
R v CICB ex parte Brady
Discretion - not to be fettered - use of word ‘precluded’.Police information - statements - disclosure.QBD - 20/02/87 - B 17(9P)
R v CICB ex parte Brady (582kb)
R v CICB ex parte Whitelock
Hearing - meaning of evidence 'brought out'.Police information - statements - disclosure.QBD - 04/12/86 - B 16(8P)
R v CICB ex parte Whitelock (330kb)
R v Ch Con of Cheshire ex parte Berry
Police information - statements and convictions - disclosure.QBD - 30/07/85 - B 14(7P)
No copy of judgement available
R v CICB ex parte Prior
Decision - reasons - written reasons fuller than oral decision.Judicial Review - not an appeal.QBD - 19/11/82 - B 09(6P)
R v CICB ex parte Prior (503kb)
R v CICB ex parte Brindle
Convictions - reopening issue after eligibility decision made.QBD - 04/02/82 - B 03(5P)
R v CICB ex parte Brindle (201kb)
R v CICB ex parte Chalders
Decision - reasons - adequacy - must show that relevant factors were considered.QBD - 03/02/81 - A 17(4P)
R v CICB ex parte Chalders (330kb)
R v CICB ex parte RJC
Discretion not to be fettered.QBD - 21/01/78 - A13(3P)
R v CICB ex parte RJC (286kb)
R v CICB ex parte Richardson
Unpublished policy of Board must be disclosed to applicant if relevant to decision.QBD - 26/11/73 - A 08(2P)
R v CICB ex parte Richardson (653kb)
R v CICB ex parte Lain
Hearing - consideration de novo Inferior tribunal - Board described as inferior tribunal.QBD - 20/04/67 - A 02(1P)
R v CICB ex parte Lain (1.29mb)
