|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The non-disclosure of witness statements prior to a hearing did not breach the rules of natural justice so long as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board were prepared to consider any reasonable request for an adjournment so the statements might be challenged. As no application was made for an adjournment in this case there was no breach of natural justice.
Facts
The applicant (‘B’) sustained serious stab wounds to his forearm whilst out walking with his friend. He made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’), which was refused on paper under paragraph 6(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1979 on the basis that B had not satisfied the Board that he did not participate willingly in a gang fight nor that his injuries were not connected with his associations with a violent gang. B applied for an oral hearing at which the Board confirmed the original decision and disallowed the application. The Board in reaching their decision relied in part on the hearsay evidence of a witness (‘T’), whose statement was provided to B for the first time at the hearing. B sought judicial review of the Board’s decision on the basis that the Board (i) failed to give proper consideration to the evidence of all the lay witnesses, (ii) gave undue weight to the hearsay evidence of T, (iii) failed to ensure the attendance of T at the hearing, (iv) allowed the hearsay evidence of T to be presented before it, (v) failed to notify B’s solicitors in advance that this procedure would be adopted and (vi) failed to provide B’s solicitors with T’s statement until the day of the hearing.
Held, dismissing the application
(1) The suggestion that the Board gave undue weight to the hearsay and untested evidence of T was wholly without the possibility of being supported.
(2) The rules of natural justice applied in the same way to inquisitorial as to adversarial proceedings: Peter Thomas Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd and Others (1984) AC 808.
(3) The Board were entitled to take the view that the agreement with the police contained in the Home Office Letter of 30 May 1969 was an agreement to supply statements to the Board alone and it was clearly implicit in that statement that the Board would throughout retain custody and control of the statements and would not release them into other hands.
(4) The non-disclosure of statements prior to the hearing did not breach the rules of natural justice so long as the Board were prepared to consider any reasonable request for an adjournment so the statements might be considered and, if so advised and if reasonably required, evidence might be obtained to contradict them..
(5) As no application was made for an adjournment in this case there was no breach of natural justice in the proceedings before the Board.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1979, paragraphs 6(c), 23
Cases referred to in judgment
The Queen v Chief Constable of Cheshire and Another, ex parte John Berry (unreported, Nolan J, 30 July 1985)
B. Surinder Singh Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya (1962) AC 322
Peter Thomas Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd and Others (1984) AC 808
Representation
Mr R Thomas QC and Mr M Sharp instructed by Messrs E Rex Makin & Co for the Applicant
Mr M Wright QC and Mr R Jay instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent
Editor’s note:
This case must now be read in the light of R v. CICA ex parte Leatherland, Bramall & Kay [2001] ACD 13
|