|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was not required to state every material consideration in giving reasons for a decision refusing compensation. Where the applicant widow was a person of good character and the award was refused because of the bad character of her murdered husband, it was not necessary to show that both factors had been considered in deciding what, if any, compensation should be awarded. It was sufficient to state that no award was appropriate because of the character of the deceased victim.
Facts
The applicant's husband, who was serving a sentence of 16 years' imprisonment for armed robbery, was murdered while unlawfully at large. The applicant, who was of good character, sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990. The single member of the Board refused the application under paragraph 6(c) on the ground that an award of compensation would be inappropriate having regard to the deceased's criminal convictions. The Board refused an application pursuant to paragraph 24 for an oral hearing, stating that it would serve no useful purpose since the single member's decision was not wrong in law or in principle and that any such hearing was bound to fail. Potts J dismissed an application for judicial review of both the decision to refuse compensation and the decision to refuse an oral hearing. On appeal by the applicant: -
Held dismissing the appeal:
(1) The reasons given by a single member of the board for refusing or reducing an award of compensation had to contain sufficient detail to show the conclusion reached on the principal important issue or issues but did not need to deal with every material consideration to which regard had been had. Bolton Metropolitan District Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1995) 71 P. & C.R. 309, H.L.(E.) followed. Nor did they need to demonstrate that the conclusion had been reached by an appropriate process of reasoning from the facts. It was clear from the reasons given that the application had been refused because of the deceased's criminal convictions and there had therefore been no need to refer to the good character of the applicant.
(2) The Board did not have to go through the three stage process set out by Sedley J in Reg. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Gambles [1994] P.I.Q.R. P314, which decision was wrong. The Board simply had to ask itself whether the applicant should receive an award and if so, what amount ? Reg. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thompstone & Crowe [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1234, C.A. followed. There was nothing in the reasons given to suggest that the single member had misconstrued the Board's mandate or that the decision was unreasonable.
(3) Since there was no dispute as to the material facts or the conclusion on which the decision was based and the application for an oral hearing raised nothing new, it had been open to the full board to conclude that the decision was right in law and in principle and that an oral hearing would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, there were no grounds for judicial review.
Parts of the scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990, paragraphs 4, 6, 15, 22, 24
Town & Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1986
Cases referred to in the judgments:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680, C.A.
Bolton Metropolitan District Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1995) 71 P. & C.R. 309, H.L.(E.)
Poyser and Mills' Arbitration, In re [1964] 2 Q.B. 467; [1963] 2 W.L.R. 1309; [1963] 1 All E.R. 612
Reg. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Aston [1994] C.O.D 500
Reg. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Gambles [1994] P.I.Q.R. P314
Reg. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Hopper (unreported), 7 July 1995, Buxton J.
Reg. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Jobson (unreported), 4 May 1995, Dyson J.
Reg. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thompstone & Crowe[1984] 1 W.L.R. 1234; [1984] 3 All E.R. 572, C.A.
Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians v. Brain [1981] I.C.R. 542, C.A.
Representation:
Mr Alan Newman QC and Mr Adrian Jack, instructed by Needleman Knowles, for C;
Mr Michael Kent and Mr S Snowden instructed by Treasury Solicitor, for the Board.
|