|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The applicant, who alleged that she had been raped, sought judicial review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board’s refusal of her claim for compensation on the basis of their finding that she was not so drunk that she could not have consented to intercourse. The Judge held that the Board had considered the evidence and their conclusion was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
Facts
The applicant (‘SD’) made an application for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) alleging that she had been raped by three men while drunk. The Board were not satisfied that that SD had not consented to sexual intercourse and so refused her claim.
SD applied for judicial review of the Board’s decision contending that in dealing with a rape complaint the Board should not have taken into account the question of whether the defendant knew that the victim did not consent or was reckless as to whether they consented or not, which was only relevant in a criminal context. Further, SD argued that in failing to give due weight to the evidence the decision of the Board was Wednesbury unreasonable.
Held, refusing the application
(1) By ignoring the criminal element necessary in rape the Board could, if finding other facts in an applicant’s favour, make a compensation award even if no crime had occurred.
(2) The Board heard the application as a tribunal of fact and had considered evidence from SD and other witnesses. In such circumstances the court could not conclude that the Board had been Wednesbury unreasonable in making a finding that SD was not so drunk that she could not have consented to intercourse.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990, paragraph 4(a)
|