|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The fact that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 required the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel to consider the applicant’s claim afresh and not to remit matters to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for reconsideration did not mean that the Scheme was defective. There were no grounds in public law for saying that that was the way that the Scheme ought to operate. Permission to apply for judicial review was accordingly refused.
Facts
The applicant (‘C’) made an application for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (‘the Authority’) which was refused on the basis that the Authority was not satisfied that the injuries complained of had resulted from a crime of violence. C appealed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (‘the Panel’) asking for a review of that decision. The Panel accepted that C had been the victim of a crime of violence and was entitled to compensation. This was reduced substantially, however, pursuant to paragraphs 13(a) and 13(e) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 (‘the 1996 Scheme’) on the basis that C had failed to co-operate with police and had a criminal record.
C sought to bring judicial review proceedings against the Authority, naming the Panel as an interested party. He complained that the decision taken by the Panel was wrong as they should not have decided the matter appealed to them themselves but should have remitted the matter to the Authority to make a fresh decision. Permission was refused on paper by Gage J. and in court by Hopper J. C then renewed his application for permission to the Court of Appeal.
Held, refusing permission to apply for judicial review:
(1) There were no grounds for saying that the Scheme was in any way defective in that the Panel considered the matter afresh. The fact that what was under review by the Panel was a nil award and that such a review involved all the questions that arose or might arise under the 1996 Scheme, including the question as to whether an award of compensation should be reduced in the way that it was, was made clear to C in a letter sent to him prior to the Panel hearing.
(2) Although the Panel applied a different approach from that of the Authority in certain issues with regard to previous convictions it was entirely open to the Scheme to operate in that way. There were no grounds in public law for saying that the Scheme ought to operate in a different way.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996, paragraph 13(a) and 13(e).
C, in person, assisted by Mr Kenneth Boxall as litigation friend
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 – Paragraph 13 – Eligibility – Procedure - Conduct and Character - Failure to co-operate with police - Criminal convictions – Panel hearing - Whether Panel should remit case to Authority
Summary of decision
The fact that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 required the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel to consider the applicant’s claim afresh and not to remit matters to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for reconsideration did not mean that the Scheme was defective. There were no grounds in public law for saying that that was the way that the Scheme ought to operate. Permission to apply for judicial review was accordingly refused.
Facts
The applicant (‘C’) made an application for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (‘the Authority’) which was refused on the basis that the Authority was not satisfied that the injuries complained of had resulted from a crime of violence. C appealed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (‘the Panel’) asking for a review of that decision. The Panel accepted that C had been the victim of a crime of violence and was entitled to compensation. This was reduced substantially, however, pursuant to paragraphs 13(a) and 13(e) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 (‘the 1996 Scheme’) on the basis that C had failed to co-operate with police and had a criminal record.
C sought to bring judicial review proceedings against the Authority, naming the Panel as an interested party. He complained that the decision taken by the Panel was wrong as they should not have decided the matter appealed to them themselves but should have remitted the matter to the Authority to make a fresh decision. Permission was refused on paper by Gage J. and in court by Hopper J. C then renewed his application for permission to the Court of Appeal.
Held, refusing permission to apply for judicial review:
(1) There were no grounds for saying that the Scheme was in any way defective in that the Panel considered the matter afresh. The fact that what was under review by the Panel was a nil award and that such a review involved all the questions that arose or might arise under the 1996 Scheme, including the question as to whether an award of compensation should be reduced in the way that it was, was made clear to C in a letter sent to him prior to the Panel hearing.
(2) Although the Panel applied a different approach from that of the Authority in certain issues with regard to previous convictions it was entirely open to the Scheme to operate in that way. There were no grounds in public law for saying that the Scheme ought to operate in a different way.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996, paragraph 13(a) and 13(e).
C, in person, assisted by Mr Kenneth Boxall as litigation friend
|