|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The Applicant (‘CV’) applied for compensation in relation to alleged crimes of assault, rape, buggery and false imprisonment by W. W was convicted of assault. The other allegations of sexual assault and false imprisonment were never intimated to the police. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board rejected the application as they had doubts about CV's credibility regarding the other allegations, and would have withheld an award on account of CV’s failure to inform the police of the full details of the offences in any event. The Court held that the Board was entitled to arrive at its finding based on the evidence before it.
Facts
In July 1993, CV applied for compensation in relation to alleged crimes of assault, rape, buggery and false imprisonment by her ex-partner (‘W’). W had been convicted and imprisoned in respect of serious assaults perpetrated on CV and her daughter in January 1985. The other allegations of sexual assault and false imprisonment were not intimated to the police. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘The Board’) rejected the application as they had doubts about CV's credibility regarding the hitherto undisclosed allegations. The Board confirmed that even if they had believed those allegations an award would have been withheld on account of CV’s failure to inform the police of the full details of the offences. CV applied for judicial review, arguing that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable as it could not stand with the medical evidence adduced to the effect that (1) certain physical injuries suffered were consistent with CV’s story; (2) CV’s serious post-traumatic stress disorder was consistent with her story; and (3) relying on CV’s account given to the doctors, where the doctors attributed her condition to the experience which she said she had suffered.
Held
(1) The evidence relied upon by CV did not necessarily show her account to be true. There was no doubt that the Board did, as it had to, have regard to this evidence. The evidence was not conclusive and the Board was entitled to find, as it did, that CV’s story was not to be believed.
(2) There was nothing inconsistent with rejecting CV’s claim and awarding her daughter £17,500.00 in respect of the accepted assault. That award did not reflect any award for the alleged false imprisonment, rape and buggery claimed by CV.
(3) Whilst it was unnecessary to consider the Board’s alternative ground for refusing the claim, it was entitled on the evidence to find that the traumatic effect of the alleged events and CV’s fear could not explain or excuse the delay in reporting to the police, for CV had reported the severe assault which led to W’s imprisonment.
Parts of the scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
[Not mentioned, but paragraph 4 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 was under consideration.]
Cases referred to in the judgment
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680, C.A.
Representation:
Mr C Parry, instructed by Bevirs, Swindon, for CV.
Mr J Keith, instructed by the Treasury Solicitors, for the Board.
|