|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
Where the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is considering withholding or reducing an award on the basis of the applicant’s character (paragraph 6(c) of the Scheme), the relevant test to apply is whether the applicant is an appropriate recipient of an ex gratia payment made at the public expense.
Facts
The Applicant (‘H’) was in September 1991 gratuitously assaulted by a group of other young men in a pub. Ammonia was squirted into his face and he was hit about his head sustaining various injuries. He made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’), which was refused on paper on the basis that H had not co-operated with the police and that his case fell within paragraph 6(a) of the Scheme. H sought an oral hearing, at which the Board refused H’s application on the basis of H’s character and previous convictions (paragraph 6(c) of the Scheme). There was no dispute as to his convictions including several convictions and cautions for theft, breach of a probation order and community service order and failure to surrender to custody. H sought judicial review of the Board’s decision on the grounds that (i) they had failed to consider making a reduced award rather than a nil award; (ii) the Board failed properly to apply paragraph 6(c) in that they considered separately and independently the issue of H’s character and did not balance out the nature and seriousness of the convictions against the circumstances of the offence H complained of; (iii) the Board should have engaged in a balancing exercise between the seriousness of the offences and the seriousness of the injuries.
Held
(1) The Board considered the possibility of a reduced award but took the view that the nature of H’s convictions and conduct precluded them from giving any award at all.
(2) The suggestion that the Board’s statement of reasons for the decision was an ex post facto reconstruction was rejected. The Board did not have a duty to do more than to indicate to the Applicant what its decision was and the basis for that decision.
(3) It is plain the Board acted in the way complained of in relation to their consideration of paragraph 6(c). Paragraph 6(c) would appear to invite the Board to look at the matter of character as an issue separate from the nature of the offence and injuries the applicant has suffered. The Board is not under an obligation to weigh up the offence and conduct in each case although there may be cases where the meritorious nature of the applicant’s conduct could be considered to outweigh any detriment from his previous convictions.
(4) Considering the case of R v CICB ex parte Gambles (1994) PIQR 314; this is no authority for saying that there must be a demonstration in the Board’s reasoning of some connection, between the applicant’s convictions and the reduction or omission of the award that is proposed.
(5) There is nothing in paragraph 6(c) or in the case of Gambles to suggest paragraph 6(c) is anything other than a preliminary point to be considered within the Board’s discretion before they turn to the substance of the award.
(6) Considering the terms of paragraph 6(c), there is no justification for the argument that the Board should have engaged in a balancing exercise between the seriousness of the offences and the seriousness of the injuries.
(7) The relevant test to apply is whether the applicant is an appropriate recipient of an ex gratia payment made at the public expense: Thompson applied.
(8) Application dismissed
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1990 Scheme, paragraphs 6(a) & (c)
Cases referred to in judgment
R v CICB ex parte Gambles (1994) PIQR 314
R v CICB ex parte Thomas (1995) PIQR 99
R v CICB ex parte Thompson (1984) 1 WLR 1234
Representation
Mr H Lederman instructed by Pearson & Caulfield for the Applicant
Mr R Jay instructed by the Treasury Department for the Respondent
|