|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The applicant, who had criminal convictions, was refused compensation on paper on the basis of his convictions. He made an application for an oral hearing, which was refused under paragraph 24(c) of the 1990 Scheme. There was no dispute as to his convictions and, therefore, no dispute as to the material facts upon which the refusal to grant a hearing was made. Accordingly, he was not entitled to an oral hearing. The Scheme was not contrary to natural justice as there was a difference between a right to a hearing and a right to be heard.
Facts
The applicant (‘Y’) was assaulted and stabbed in a club when he attempted to stop his assailant from stealing money from the till. He made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) for compensation, which was rejected on the basis of Y’s criminal convictions. Y did not dispute the schedule of convictions, which included two convictions for assault. He applied for an oral hearing on the basis that his previous convictions did not reflect the gravity of the injury he sustained; this application was refused. Y sought judicial review of the refusal to grant an oral hearing on the grounds that (i) the decision contravened the Scheme, (ii) the decision was vitiated by a failure to give reasons and (iii) the provision in the Scheme which enabled the Board to deny Y an oral hearing was contrary to natural justice.
Held, dismissing the application
(1) The Board had to ask itself two questions pursuant to paragraph 24(c) of the Scheme (i) was there a dispute as to the material facts or conclusions on which the decision to refuse compensation was based? and (ii) does it appear that the decision to refuse compensation might have been wrong in law or in principle?
(2) In this case it cannot be said that there was a dispute as to the material facts or conclusions on which the decision to refuse compensation was based. Compensation was refused by reason of Y’s character as shown by his previous convictions. The convictions constituted the material facts on which the decision was based.
(3) Y did not dispute the material facts; he disputed the decision itself. Accordingly, the requirements of paragraph 24(c) were not made out and it follows Y was not entitled to an oral hearing.
(4) Given that the application failed the criteria under section 24(c), the question of giving reasons did not arise.
(5) Y’s argument that the Scheme is contrary to natural justice fails to distinguish between a right to a hearing and a right to be heard. In administrative procedures such as this, the refusal of a hearing is not per se a denial of natural justice. Nothing in the Scheme deprives the applicant of a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case; the Scheme therefore does not involve a denial of natural justice.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1990 Scheme, paragraphs 6, 22, 23 & 24
Cases referred to in judgment
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex p Chalders (Forbes J, 3 February 1981, unreported)
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex p Cook (Potts J, 12 October 1994, unreported)
Pearlberg v Varty [1972] 1 WLR 534
Furnell v Whangerei High Schools Board [1973] AC 660
Russell v Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109,)
Representation
Mr McColl instructed by Drummon Miller for Y
Mr Tyre instructed by the Solicitor to the Secretary of State for the Respondent
|