|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The Court upheld a decision to refuse compensation to an applicant on the grounds that he had not co-operated with the police. It is for the Panel who hear the oral evidence to make the relevant findings of fact and to assess the weight to be given to each piece of evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The Court can only interfere with the decision if the Panel err in law.
Facts
The applicant (‘T’) was the victim of an unprovoked assault at a party. The police were informed immediately and interviewed party guests; they refused to make any statements. T did not make a formal statement until 1 month later. He had been too unwell to make a statement on the day of the stabbing or 4 days later when visited by police. There was some evidence that he feared reprisals and that he had declined to make a statement about 3 weeks after the assault. At an appeal hearing before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (‘the Panel’), T was refused an award on the grounds that he could and should have given a statement earlier, which would have assisted the police investigation. T applied for judicial review of the Panel’s decision on the grounds that (i) the Panel failed to take into account the evidence of the investigating officer that the delay in providing a statement had not made any difference to the investigation or take into account relevant matters such as T’s physical and mental condition and his fear of reprisals; (ii) the Panel erred in doubting the manner in which the assault had occurred in that there was no evidence to contradict T’s account; (iii) the Panel reached a decision that was perverse.
Held, dismissing the application
(1) The Panel had considered the medical and witness evidence adequately and had formed the view that the Applicant was fit to give a statement much sooner than he did.
(2) The Panel had properly considered the issue of fear of reprisals and took the view that the fears were not of such a magnitude so as to amount to a substantial and real obstacle to cooperation.
(3) Whilst there was no contradictory account of the assault, there were internal inconsistencies in the applicant’s own evidence and he had failed to cooperate fully in giving the details of another potential witness. The burden of proof in respect of establishing a crime of violence rested on the applicant.
(4) It is for the Panel who hear the oral evidence to make the relevant findings of fact and to assess the weight to be given to each piece of evidence and the credibility of witnesses. It cannot be said that having reviewed the evidence the Panel in the instant case failed to take account of a material factor.
(5) The Court can only interfere with the Panel’s decision if they err in law. It could not be said that in the instant case the Panel reached views that any reasonable Panel would not have reached.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1996 Scheme, paragraphs 8 & 13
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995
Representation
The Applicant in person
Miss A Foster instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent
|