|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The applicant was the victim of an unprovoked attack. He was refused compensation at an oral hearing before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the basis that he had not reported the incident to the police as soon as possible (paragraph 6(a) of the 1990 Scheme). The appropriate test in a case under paragraph 6(a) is: (a) did the applicant take steps without delay all reasonable steps (sic.) to inform the police of the circumstances of the injury and co-operate with the police in bringing the offender to justice; (b) if so, should compensation be withheld or reduced; (c) what award, if any, should the applicant consequently receive? The Board had asked themselves the 3 questions they were required to ask, but had failed to give adequate reasons for their decision. Accordingly, the Board’s decision was quashed.
Facts
The applicant (‘J’) was the victim of an unprovoked attack. His application for compensation was disallowed on paper. He applied for an oral hearing before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’). He gave evidence supported by a witness who was a friend that he had been the victim of an unprovoked attack in a pub. The police had been called and the Applicant had told them that he could not identify his attacker and that he did not want to make a formal complaint. In evidence he said that he did not understand the significance of this. He attended hospital for treatment of his injuries immediately afterwards and said he assumed the police would interview him in hospital. When the police did not, he contacted them the next day and thereafter made a statement to the police on his discharge from hospital 4 days after the assault. Enquiries had been made on the night of the incident. Further enquiries were made by the police; however, no arrest followed and no charges were laid. The Board heard evidence from the investigating police officer to the effect of the delay in proper reporting by the applicant. The Board disallowed the application on the basis that the applicant had not reported the incident to the police as soon as possible (paragraph 6(a) of the 1990 Scheme). J sought judicial review of the Board’s decision on the grounds that (i) the Board’s reasoning was inadequate because (a) they failed to follow the proper chain of reasoning or (b) they failed to give any or any adequate reasons for the decision to award no compensation rather than reduced compensation; alternatively, (ii) the Board misdirected themselves as to the meaning of the Scheme, in that they considered the effect of delay in reporting the matter to the police as determinative of the question of compensation and failed to consider to what extent it was fair to award reduced compensation.
Held
(1) The 3 stage test identified by Sedley J in Ex parte Gambles in relation to conduct of the applicant (para 6(c) of the Scheme) cannot be applied literally to a case under paragraph 6(a) of the Scheme (R-v-Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Gambles (unreported, Sedley J, 3 December 1993) considered)
(2) The appropriate 3 stage test would be: (a) did the applicant take steps without delay all reasonable steps (sic.) to inform the police of the circumstances of the injury and co-operate with the police in bringing the offender to justice; (b) if so, should compensation be withheld or reduced; (c) what award, if any, should the applicant consequently receive?
(3) The Board in the instant case asked themselves the 3 questions they were required to ask.
(4) The Board’s decision was flawed on the grounds that no adequate reasons were given for the decision not to award at least some compensation.
(5) There is no need to make detailed findings of fact or to give exhaustive reasons. Short reasons for the conclusion will suffice, but those reasons must be sufficient to enable the applicant to see the factual basis on which the relevant conclusion has been arrived at, what considerations have been taken into account and whether the decision was lawful.
(6) Board’s decision quashed.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1990 Scheme, paragraph 6(a) and 6 (c)
Cases referred to in judgment
R-v-Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Gambles (unreported, Sedley J, 3 December 1993)
R-v-Civil Service Appeal Board ex parte Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310
R-v-The Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Khan (Mahmood) [1983] QB 790
R-v-Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Cummins Vol 1 PIQR Q81
Mr C Lewis instructed by Messrs Mincoff Science & Gold for J
Mr M Kent instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent
|