|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The Board was entitled to refuse an oral hearing where they had addressed the proper question under paragraph 24(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 namely whether the decision of the staff member to withhold any award was either erroneous in point of fact or in the conclusions drawn from the facts, wrong in law or in principle.
Facts
The applicant (‘G’) sought leave to challenge the decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) to refuse him any award of compensation for injuries sustained while a serving prisoner for a number of dishonesty offences. A staff member employed by the Board refused G’s initial application as a consequence of his convictions pursuant to paragraph 6(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 (‘the Scheme’). The staff member then proceeded to consider whether G’s application for an oral hearing would fail the criteria set out in paragraph 24 of the 1990 Scheme. Paragraph 24(c) provides that an applicant will only be entitled to an oral hearing if: “no award or a reduced award has been made and there us a dispute as to the material fact or conclusions upon which the initial or reconsidered decision was based, or it appears that the decision may have been wrong in law or in principle”. This decision was then reviewed and approved by three members of the Board, pursuant to their obligations in paragraph 24 of the 1990 Scheme. G drew attention to the case of another prisoner called Dowling who had secured an oral hearing in similar circumstances. The Board claimed public interest immunity in respect of Mr Dowling’s papers and furthermore provided an affidavit setting out how the staff member who gave an oral hearing in that case ought not to have done so but should instead have referred the application to the full Board.
Held, dismissing the application
(1) The Board did address the question under paragraph 24(c) namely whether the decision of the staff member to withhold any award was either erroneous in point of fact or in the conclusions drawn from the facts, wrong in law or in principle. Having so considered this the Board concluded that there was nothing which would have moved them to take any different decision on any of the criteria in paragraph 24(c)
(2) If public interest immunity prevented the production of the Dowling papers the point should be dropped and nothing decided in G’s case would therefore be predicated on the substance or merits of Mr Dowling’s case. (His application had ultimately failed before the Board).
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1990 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, paragraph 6(c) & 24(c)
Representation
Mr A Garner in person
Mr J Holdsworth for the respondent.
|