|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The applicant’s husband was killed in a fight. The Applicant was found to be eligible for compensation subject to a one third reduction for the deceased’s conduct. The Applicant failed to cooperate with the Authority and so no award was subsequently made. At an oral hearing to appeal the nil award, the Panel re-considered eligibility and refused the application. That decision was upheld by the Court, as the Panel have complete discretion as to the decision they reach. The fact that another application by the deceased’s parents may have been successful did not bind the Panel in any way.
Facts
The applicant (‘H’) was the common law wife of a man killed in a fight outside a fish and chip shop. When the application was determined initially on paper, an officer of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority determined that the Applicant was eligible for an award but any such award would be reduced by one third because of the deceased’s own part in the fight. However, no compensation was subsequently awarded because H failed to produce information requested by the officer. H sought re-determination at an oral hearing, before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Panel (‘the Panel’) which considered that H was not eligible for any compensation at all because of the conduct of the deceased. The deceased’s parents had also made an application for compensation which, H understood, had been granted. H applied for judicial review of the Panel’s decision on the following grounds: it is unfair for one applicant to receive compensation in such circumstances and another to be denied it; the Panel’s decision must be irrational because it was at odds with the decision on paper; the Panel adopted the wrong test when considering the application; the Panel was too influenced by the views of a police officer.
Held
(1) H chose to challenge the original determination of her application; she could have accepted the original outcome with a one third reduction. The Panel has a complete discretion as to which decision to reach. There was no unfairness or inequality.
(2) There is no reason to suppose the Panel’s decision is irrational because it contravenes the decision on paper; different arguments are advanced and it is not unusual for there to be different results in the circumstances.
(3) The appropriate test for the Panel to determine is whether the deceased was a victim of crime. The Panel concluded that he had ceased to be so and it would not be right to go behind the statement of their reasons.
(4) There is nothing in the Panel’s decision that suggests that they fell into the error of taking account of any opinion in relation to the very facts they had to determine.
(5) Application dismissed.
Mr Steven Snowden instructed by Russell Jones & Walker for H
Mr James Strachan instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent
|