|
Headnote |
Summary of decision:
Two applications for compensation arising from assaults suffered by the applicant whilst in prison on remand were refused under paragraph 6(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 on the grounds that he had a number of criminal convictions. The discretion under paragraph 6(c) was very wide and that width was not reduced by the issue of the Guide to the 1990 Scheme. The application for judicial review was refused on the grounds that although this was a case which might have been decided differently, the court was not empowered to substitute its discretion for that of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Facts:
The applicant, M, was assaulted twice whilst in prison on remand, suffering a broken jaw and other facial injuries. His applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (“the Board”) for compensation were refused under paragraph 6(c) of the 1990 Scheme by both a single member and at an oral hearing. At the oral hearing M had argued that the attacks were unprovoked and that his character and way of life was not a contributory fact in relation to the attacks. His convictions included theft, assaulting police and an indecent assault upon a female child. It was whilst on remand for the latter offence that the assaults occurred. He applied for judicial review of the Board’s decision. He argued that the Board failed to consider paragraphs 37-39 of the Guide to the 1990 Scheme and that in failing to do so was in error and/or failed to direct itself properly and/or acted unreasonably in reaching its decision. He also argued that the Board had failed (a) to consider attempts by M to reform himself evidenced by an absence of convictions for 5 years, (b) to undertake a sufficiently detailed analysis of M’s convictions, and (c) to consider its power to reduce rather than refuse an award of compensation.
Held, refusing the application:
(1) The Board were under no obligation to spell matters out further in their decision letter than they did. The discretion under paragraph 6(c) was very wide and that width was not reduced by the issue of the Guide to the 1990 Scheme. The Board had no authority to reduce the width of its discretion.
(2) Although this was a case where the Board might have decided the case differently, the court was not empowered to substitute its discretion for that of the Board.
(3) The weight that the court gave to an absence of convictions for 5 years was a matter for it and was not susceptible to judicial review.
Parts of the scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990, paragraph 6
Guide to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990, paragraphs 37, 38, 39
Cases referred to in the judgment:
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Thompstone and Crowe, CA [1984] 1 WLR 1234
Representation:
Mr K Talbot, instructed by Brown Turner Compton Carr & Co, Southport, for M.
Mr M Kent, instructed y Treasury Solicitors, for the Board.
|