|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The Applicants (‘K’) and (‘M’) were the mother and step father of J, a child who had been abused by her step grandfather G. K and M suffered a reactive depression as a result of being told of the abuse and applied for compensation. Their applications were rejected as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board found that the injuries were not directly attributable to a crime of violence. The Court upheld the Board’s decision, accepting that proximity was relevant to the question of whether the injury was directly attributable, as opposed to indirectly attributable to the crime. The closer in time and place the secondary victim was to the commission of a crime of violence, the more likely it was that any personal injury suffered by him or her as a result of being told about the crime would be directly attributable to it.
Facts:
K was the mother and M the step-father of J, who suffered serious indecent assaults by M’s father, G, between October 1991 and July 1993. J disclosed the abuse to K and M on 8 August 1993 and K and M went with J to the police. J was interviewed by the police in the presence of K, and described her experiences in some detail. At some stage K and M were shown a pornographic video that G had watched with J. The revelations caused great distress to K and M. In March 1994, J, K and M applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘The Board’) for compensation. On 17 January 1995 all three applications were disallowed by the single member of the Board. A review was sought. On 16 February 1995 G was convicted on three counts of indecent assault and sentenced to two years imprisonment. On 10 February 1997 the Board decided that J had sustained personal injury directly attributable to the indecent assault and awarded her £7,500.00. In respect of both K and M, it was decided that they had suffered a reactive depression as a result of being told by J that she had been indecently assaulted, but that such injuries were not directly attributable to a crime of violence. No further reasons were given. K and M sought judicial review, arguing that the decision was wrong in law in respect of the depression not being directly attributable to a crime of violence, i.e. outside the range of decisions which, directing itself properly, the Board could reasonably make. The Board argued that, if there was an error of law as to direct attribution to a crime of violence, then the Board were wrong that a reactive depression was a personal injury within paragraph 4 of the Scheme, and that the Board’s refusal of an award was, therefore, correct.
Held, dismissing the application
(1) There was no doubt that K and M had no cause of action at common law against G. They were not within the sight or hearing of the indecent assaults, or their immediate aftermath, so that the requisite degree of proximity was absent.
(2) Proximity is a relevant but not conclusive consideration when direct attribution is determined. The closer in time and place the secondary victim is to the crime of violence, the more likely it was that the personal injury suffered by him or her as a result of being told about the crime would be directly attributable to it.
(3) The Board committed no error in law in finding that the injuries of K and M were not directly attributable to the crime. Whilst it was unfortunate that the Board did not give any reasons, there was material to support their conclusions. J did not make her complaint until at least several days after the last assault, and many months after the earlier assaults. The Court should be slow to interfere with findings involving difficult questions of fact and degree.
Parts of the scheme and other legislation referred to in the judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990, paragraph 4
Cases referred to in the judgment
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] AC 410, HL
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310, HL
Parsons v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, The Times 25 November 1982, CA
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Webb [1987] 1 QB 74
Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] AC 663, 681
O’Dowd v The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, CA of Northern Ireland
Representation
Mr ML Dineen (Miss A Burt for judgment), instructed by Moore & Blatch, Lymington, for K and M.
Mr J Knowles, instructed by the Treasury Solicitors, for the Board.
|