|
Headnote |
Summary of decision:
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board had discretion to exclude an individual (in this case a solicitor who had been struck off the roll for misconduct) as representative of a particular applicant or applicants, provided always that the discretion was exercised reasonably.
Facts:
The petitioner ‘T’, a solicitor, appeared before the Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 January 1992. The tribunal found T guilty of six charges of professional misconduct, which included dishonesty, embezzling client monies and using false identities. He was struck off the roll of Solicitors in Scotland with immediate effect. T then took up employment with a new firm of solicitors but did not disclose the findings or his reasons for leaving his previous employment. T appeared before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (“the Board”) on 2 October 1992 as representative of an applicant for compensation. The Board decided that T was not a suitable person either to act in any capacity on behalf of any applicant in written communication with the Board or to act on behalf of any applicant at an oral hearing. T submitted that the Board had no power to exclude him, short of any issue of mental incapacity. T submitted that paragraphs 25 and 27 of the 1990 Scheme gave no such power. T did not, however, say that the exercise of discretion, if there was one, was unreasonable.
Held, dismissing the petition:
(1) The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 was discretionary and the discretion was that of the Board. The Board’s decisions could be reviewed if it misconstrued its mandate or must be deemed to have done so due to making a decision that no reasonable decision maker could have reached on the facts if it had correctly construed its mandate. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 applied.
(2) Within the limits set down by those principles, the Board had power to decide who appeared as representative of an applicant. Hearings before the Board were private and the Board had the right to control, within the principles mentioned, who attended those hearings. The submission that anyone had the right to appear as representative of an applicant before the Board was wrong.
(3) The Board clearly had discretion to exclude an individual as representative of a particular applicant, or applicants more generally, provided always that such discretion was exercised reasonably. As it was accepted by T that if the Board had any such discretion, it could not be said that it had been exercised unreasonably in the circumstances of the present case, the petition must be dismissed.
Parts of the scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1990 Scheme, paragraphs 25, 27
Cases referred to in the judgment:
A v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [1987] 1 QB 74, CA
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
R v CICB ex parte Thompstone and Crowe [1983] 1 AER 936
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Tarrant [1985] 1 QB 251
Representation:
Mr Wallace for T.
Mr Liddle for the Board.
|