|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The applicant was refused compensation on paper on the basis of unreasonable delay in reporting the matter to the police. He applied to adjourn the oral hearing in order to be able to cross-examine a police officer who had provided a report on the applicant’s conduct. The Board at the oral hearing refused the application to adjourn and confirmed the original determination. The Court quashed the decision on the basis that to deny the applicant the opportunity to cross-examine the officer was so unfair, in the circumstances, as to impugn the Board’s decision.
Facts
The applicant (‘C’) was the victim of an assault and applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) for compensation. His application was withheld on the grounds that he had refused to make a formal complaint to the police (paragraph 6(a) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 (‘The Scheme’)). C’s case was that he had not refused to give a statement when in hospital; that he had been in a disoriented state in hospital due to a concussive head injury; that the police had told him that CID would visit him at a later stage and that his reporting of the matter to the police 5 days post assault was because CID had not attended upon him; not because this was the first stage in claiming compensation from the Board. C applied for an oral hearing, at which he applied for an adjournment in order to be able to call a police officer (‘T’) who had provided a report that he had seen C in hospital and that C had declined to make a complaint to the police as he had been told he was eligible for criminal injuries compensation. It was not suggested that had the applicant made a formal complaint sooner, this would have led to arrest of the assailant, as C was unable to identify the assailant. The Board heard evidence from another police officer who was permitted by the Board to speak to T’s report. The Board confirmed the original decision to withhold compensation. C sought judicial review of the Board’s decision.
Held, allowing the application
(1) The evidence of T was central to the question of whether or not the applicant had been guilty of unreasonable delay in reporting the matter to the police and was also of importance on other topics.
(2) The hearing should not have proceeded unless the Board was satisfied that T would not be available, even if a lengthy adjournment was required for the purpose.
(3) To deny the applicant the opportunity to cross-examine T was so unfair, in the circumstances, as to impugn the Board’s decision, which should therefore be quashed.
(4) The Board had failed to give reasons for rejecting the applicant’s evidence in making a finding of ‘unreasonable delay’ and in deciding not to award reduced compensation. A statement of reasons and findings of fact sufficient to enable the applicant to see how the decision was arrived at was required.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1990 Scheme, paragraphs 6(a), 25
Cases referred to in judgment
R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner, cx p. Moore [1965] I Q.B 456
T A Miller Limited v Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1968] 1 WLR 992
R v Hull Visitors, cx p. St Germain [1979] W L R 1401
R v Civil Service Appeal Board, ex p. Cunningham [1991] 4 All E R 310
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Representation
J Freedman and J Roberts instructed by Crutes for C
M Kent and R Pershad instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent
|