|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The Applicant (‘D’) made an application for compensation for injuries arising from serious physical and sexual abuse. The attack happened in 1958 and the Applicant applied for compensation in 1994 under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board refused to waive the 3 year time limit imposed by paragraph 4 of the Scheme. The Court upheld the Board's decision finding that the Board required to consider, first, whether there were exceptional circumstances and, secondly, whether the 3 year ban could be waived.
Facts
D suffered a serious physical and sexual attack, with consequent traumatic shock, in 1958 when aged about 11. The culprit was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and D’s mother had kept press cuttings in this regard. D had subsequently led a troubled life and received several lengthy custodial sentences. D applied for compensation on 21 November 1994, pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 (‘The Scheme’). The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘The Boarsd’) refused to entertain the application as, pursuant to paragraph 4, applications were to be made within 3 years of the incident giving rise to the injury, save that the Board could waive the requirement in exceptional cases. The Board did not consider the case exceptional and did not waive the requirement in the present case. D applied for leave for judicial review arguing that the Board’s decision was (1) Wednesbury unreasonable and/or (2) wrong in law.
Held, dismissing the application for leave
(1) In applying paragraph 4, the Chairman had to consider (1) whether the case was exceptional and then (2) whether the 3 year ban should be waived. Waiver is a matter of discretion. The reasons given by the Chairman for refusing waiver were compelling, and there was no basis on which it could be argued that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable.
(2) This was a case where other persons knew of the attack and could have given advice to D as to any claim for compensation. Whilst D had put the matter out of his mind, he could not be said to have had no knowledge of it. The physical scarring would have been a reminder.
(3) Where the assault occurred 38 years prior to a claim, ‘very difficult and imponderable questions’ would arise in relation to how D’s life would have progressed but for the assault, and the interplay between the effects of the assault and any innate failings that might have led him into a life of crime. There were further difficulties in establishing reliable evidence in relation to the many important details of the offence, now that the records had gone.
(4) In any event, from the outset of the introduction of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in 1964, it was clear that only injuries caused or inflicted after the scheme began could be compensated within the scheme. Nothing happening before the 1964 Scheme came into force could be entertained. Further, if the application was not made until after 31 December 1979, then the three year hurdle, repeated in the 1990 Scheme, was imposed. There was no substance in any argument that the Board was wrong in law.
Parts of the scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injures Compensation Scheme 1964
Criminal Injures Compensation Scheme 1979, paragraph 25,
Criminal Injures Compensation Scheme 1990, paragraph 4
Cases referred to in the judgments:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680, C.A.
Representation:
Mr J Dowse, instructed by Messrs Livingstone and Company, Manchseter, for D.
|