|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The Applicant, who worked in a mental hospital, was injured when a patient pulled him down to give him a hug and injured his neck. The finding of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that the patient was ‘not of sound mind’ was not the same as a finding of insanity. Accordingly, the patient’s conduct did not constitute a crime of violence within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990.
Facts
The Applicant (‘W’) was working at a mental hospital when a male patient (‘G’), who had learning difficulties, pulled him down to give him a hug and in so doing injured W’s neck. W applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) for compensation, which was refused on paper on the basis that the injuries sustained were not as a result of a crime of violence (paragraph 4 of the 1990 Scheme). W applied for an oral hearing to review the decision, at which the Board confirmed the original decision to disallow compensation on the grounds that G was not of sound mind, that he only intended to hug W, and that W was injured by accident. W sought judicial review of the Board’s decision on the grounds that (i) if G had been of sound mind, his conduct would have been reckless and he would have been guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; the Board therefore misdirected themselves in respect of paragraph 4 of the Scheme; (ii) the Board’s finding that he was not of sound mind was equivalent to a finding of insanity, in which case paragraph 4 applied; (iii) the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable.
Held, dismissing the application
(1) The Board did not misdirect themselves. They made the finding that G was a person with learning difficulties and therefore did not have a sound mind. That finding was not the same as a finding that G was insane. As the Board did not make a finding of insanity, they were not required to apply paragraph 4 of the 1990 Scheme.
(2) On the evidence before the Board, the finding that the injury was sustained accidentally was a finding that they were reasonably entitled to make and was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990, paragraph 4
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1964 (revised 1969), paragraph 4
Offences against the Persons Act 1861, section 47
Cases referred to in judgment
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Marsden (Court of Appeal, 23 March 1999) 2000 RTR 21
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb [1987] QB 74
Representation
Miss R Tuck instructed by Thompsons Solicitors for the Applicant
Mr J Coppel instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent
|