|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The applicant was the victim of an assault who failed to identify his assailant to police, although he knew his identity, for fear of reprisals. His application for compensation was disallowed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the basis that his failure to inform the police of the name of the assailant ‘precluded’ him from an award under paragraph 6(a) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1979. That decision was quashed by the Court on the grounds that the Board had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and had failed to exercise its discretion.
Facts
The applicant (‘P’) was the victim of an assault at work, following which he failed to identify his assailant to police, although he knew his identity, for fear of reprisals. He suffered serious physical and psychiatric injuries and he applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) for compensation. His application was disallowed on paper under paragraph 6(a) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1979 on the grounds that P had not informed the police of the alleged circumstances of the injury. P sought at an oral hearing, at which the Board confirmed the original decision to withhold compensation on the basis that P’s failure to inform the police of the name of the assailant ‘precluded’ him from an award. P applied for judicial review of the Board’s decision on the grounds that (i) the Board carried out no exercise of its discretion at all, (ii) they did not consider the alternative to withholding compensation, namely reducing it, and (iii) the decision was so unreasonable as to be perverse.
Held, allowing the application
(1) The reasons given by the Board at the time did not provide any reasons for coming to the decision to withhold compensation completely. They were silent as to the reasons which “precluded” the award of compensation, which meant that no reasons had in fact been given. Later documents provided by the Board could not override the actual words given by the Board at the time in explanation of their decision. The absence of such reasons conflicted with the necessity to give adequate reasons: R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex parte Cummins (The Times, 21 January 1992).
(2) The Board in coming to its decision was not directing its mind to a discretion on the facts but only to declared policy. There was therefore no proper exercise of discretion and the Board’s decision was the result of a fettering of that discretion. The decision was therefore Wednesbury unreasonable and the failure to give adequate reasons in the decision letter was perverse.
(3) The Board’s decision was quashed and matter was remitted for consideration before a differently constituted Board.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1979, paragraph 6(a)
Guide to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1979
Cases referred to in judgment
R v Lancashire County Council, ex parte Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941
R v Civil Service Board, ex parte Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Cummins (The Times, 21 January 1992)
Representation
Mr P Laurence instructed by Messrs Evill & Coleman for the Applicant
Mr R McManus instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent
|