|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The obligation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to assist an unrepresented party did not extend to asking every question in cross examination which a skilled advocate might have asked. The Board had not, in the circumstances, failed in its duty to give proper assistance to an applicant who was unrepresented at the Board hearing.
Facts
The applicant (‘P’) was assaulted by a gang of youths on 10 October 1987. He attended hospital and was discharged the next day. P’s application for compensation was refused by a single member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) on the basis that he had failed to co-operate with police pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the 1979 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (‘the 1979 Scheme’). Paragraph 6(a) provides that the Board may withhold or reduce compensation if they consider that: “the applicant has not taken without delay all reasonable steps to inform the police…of the circumstances of the injury and to co-operate with the police…in bringing the offender to justice”. Following that decision P requested an appeal hearing stating that he disagreed with the contents of a letter written by the police to his MP on 29 June 1988. The letter stated that P had declined to make a statement, as confirmed by the crime report relating to the incident.
At the appeal hearing before the Board the police produced the relevant crime report. This stated that the alleged offence was to be filed as undetected due to P’s reluctance to provide a statement. In addition, D.C. Rands gave evidence about police attendance on P after the incident. P cross-examined the officer and the Board took up the cross-examination on his behalf. The Board concluded that they preferred the evidence of D.C.Rands and therefore found that P had not co-operated with police.
P sought judicial review of the decision of the Board based on two grounds:-
(1) That he was not given an opportunity to read the crime report. Despite it being produced in evidence before the Board and questions being asked about it in his presence, he was not supplied with a copy and so could not properly comment upon it.
(2) That considering he was unrepresented, the Board did not itself cross-examine D.C. Rands who produced the report in the way the circumstances required and thus the hearing was conduced unfairly.
Held
(1) The substance and significance of the crime report could have come as no surprise to P as it had been referred to in the letter from the police to his MP;
(2) The obligation on a court or tribunal to assist an unrepresented party to put his case to the other side’s witnesses did not extend to asking any question which a skilled advocate might have asked. The obligation was to help the unrepresented party put his version of events and his points to the witness. (Chiltern v. Saga Holidays PLC [1986] 1 All ER 841 followed) It was clear that the Board had done this. There was a limit to the extent that the Board could enter the arena. Just because some possible questions were not asked, this did not mean that the procedure was unfair. The Board had not failed in its duty to give proper assistance to P.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1979, paragraph 6(a)
Cases referred to in judgment
Chiltern v. Saga Holidays PLC [1986] 1 All ER 841
Representation
A Bradley instructed by Ellis-Fermor & Negus, Ripley for P.
M Kent instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the respondent.
|