|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
A re-hearing under paragraph 79 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 would only be considered in circumstances where neither the applicant, nor any representative on his behalf, attended the first hearing before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel. The applicant, who did not himself attend the hearing, was held to have been present through his parents whom he had chosen to represent him. He was, accordingly, not entitled to a re-hearing.
Facts
The applicant (‘O’) did not attend the hearing of his appeal before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (‘the Panel’) in April 2000. He was, however, represented at that hearing by his parents who conducted the appeal on his behalf. Thereafter O made an application for a re-hearing under paragraph 79 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996, on the basis that he was absent at the first hearing. This application was refused in March 2001 and permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Collins J. It was argued on O’s behalf that he was absent at the appeal hearing in April 2000 and that he had a right to apply for a re-hearing under paragraph 79 of the 1996 Scheme.
Paragraph 79 of the 1996 Scheme, provided that: “When an appeal is determined in the appellant’s absence, he may apply to the Panel in writing for his appeal to be reheard giving his reasons for non-attendance. Any such application must be received by the Panel within 30 days of the date of notification to the appellant of the outcome of the hearing which he has failed to attend…”
Held, dismissing the application
(1) It was accepted that the word “bring” in paragraph 74 of the 1996 Scheme which provided that an appellant could “bring a friend or legal adviser to assist in presenting his case at the hearing..” necessitated the physical presence of the appellant. However, it did not follow that the appellant must be present, although that was plainly what the rules anticipated. There was no express requirement in the rules that the appellant should be present, and there might be situations, such as because of physical infirmity, that meant that an appellant could not attend.
(2) The word “appellant” meant the appellant and his representatives. It followed that O was not absent within the true meaning of paragraph 79. He was present at the hearing through his parents whom he had chosen to represent him.
(3) The letters written by O’s parents in September 2000 did not constitute applications for a re-hearing under regulation 79. The replies from the Board were simply replies to each complaint and not acknowledgement that the letters were such an application. None of the letters mentioned the failure to attend. An application under regulation 79 cannot be made without at least the mention of non-attendance as it is the absence of the appellant which triggers the mechanism.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996, paragraphs 78, 79 and 81
Cases referred to in judgment
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (1963) P1;
Representation
G Stephenson (instructed by Hewitson, Becke & Shaw) for O
J Moffett (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the respondent.
|