|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The applicant, who had convictions, was refused compensation on paper. He applied for an oral hearing, which was refused on the grounds of his convictions (paragraph 24(c) of the 1990 Scheme). His application for judicial review was successful and the Board’s decision was quashed. However, the Board appealed and the Court of Appeal held that where the only matter in dispute was the decision to withhold compensation, (there being no dispute as to the fact of his convictions) this was not an appropriate justification for an oral hearing within paragraph 24(c).
Facts
The applicant (‘D’), who had a number of convictions, was himself assaulted and robbed outside a public house on 2 occasions. D made 2 applications for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’): the first was rejected on the grounds of his previous convictions; the second was successful subject to a 50% reduction, which D accepted. D applied for an oral hearing in respect of the first application; this was refused by the Board. D applied for judicial review of the Board’s decision; Carnwath J granted this application and quashed the Board’s decision. The Board appealed the decision of Carnwath J on the grounds that the Court had erred in its construction of paragraph 24(c) of the 1990 Scheme which provides :
An applicant will be entitled to an oral hearing only if
(c) no award or a reduced award was made and there is a dispute as to the material facts or conclusions upon which the initial or reconsidered decision was based or if it appears that the decision may have been wrong in law or principle.
…………..If it is considered on review that if any facts or conclusions which are disputed were resolved in the applicant’s favour it would have made no difference to the initial or reconsidered decision or that for any other reason an oral hearing would serve no useful purpose the application for a hearing will be refused.”
Held, dismissing the application
(1) There can be no entitlement to an oral hearing simply because an applicant disputes the factual basis of the original decision or provides additional information for consideration. Any other conclusion would effectively permit an oral hearing in virtually every case, which would be contrary to the language of paragraph 24(c) and the intentions behind paragraph 23.
(2) The proper construction of paragraph 24(c) requires that the distinction between the ‘conclusion’ and the ‘decision’ should be maintained (R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Cook [1996] 2 All E R 144 applied).
(3) The target of the attack by the applicant was the decision that an award should not be made; that is not an appropriate justification for an oral hearing within paragraph 24.
(4) Appeal allowed (Ward LJ dissenting).
(5) The status of the guidance to the Scheme issued by the Board was a matter for the Board itself.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1990 Scheme, paragraphs 6, 23 & 24(c)
Cases referred to in judgment
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Cook [1996] 2 All E R 144
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Scott-Young (unreported 9th August, 1995)
Representation
Mr Michael Kent QC instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Appellant
Mr David Blake instructed by Wythenshawe Law Centre for the Respondent
|