|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
A child assaulted by his mother’s co-habitee in 1976 was unable to claim compensation in respect of the injuries sustained as at the relevant time he and his assailant were living together as members of the same family. Paragraph 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1969 specifically provided that a man and woman living together as man and wife would be treated as if they were married to one another; it must follow that a child of one of them should be treated as being a member of that family unit.
Facts
The applicant (‘R’) made a claim for compensation in relation to injuries sustained in an assault on him by his mother’s partner, Mr Jenney, in 1976 when R was less than three months’ old. Mr Jenney who was living with R’s mother at the time was convicted and fined £50. Although the injuries to R did not initially appear to be serious there was, in fact, very considerable damage done with the result that by the time R applied for compensation, aged 14, he was severely disabled with very limited mobility. A single member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) refused the application under paragraph 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1969 on the grounds that R and his assailant were living together as members of the same family at the time of the assault. R asked for an oral hearing before the Board. They heard the application and rejected it on the same basis as the single member.
R applied for judicial review of the decision of the Board. It was argued on his behalf that at the relevant time R was not living with Mr Jenney as members of the same family as ‘membership of the family’ implied belonging. R belonged to his mother but did not belong, either by blood or in any legal relationship, to Mr Jenney.
Held, dismissing the application
(1) Paragraph 7 of the 1969 Scheme specifically provided that a man and woman living together as husband and wife would be treated as if they were married to one another; it must follow that a child of one of them should be treated as being a member of that family unit. It was not necessary for there to be a blood or legal relationship between the child and his parent’s cohabitee.
(2) Accordingly it could not be said that in the present case the Board had erred in their consideration of the case. The decision of the Board was correct.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1969, paragraph 7
Cases referred to in judgment
R v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Staten [1972] 1 All ER 1034
Representation
Mr T Hartley (instructed by Messrs Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) on behalf of R
Miss D Rose (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) on behalf of the respondent
|