|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The applicant sustained injury when he was shot in his left leg. His application for compensation was rejected by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The Court held that the Board had given unreasonable weight to the evidence of a police officer who had played no part in the investigation and that the applicant was not required by paragraph 4(a) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 to give a full and true account of the incident. The court also confirmed that the Board was obliged to give reasons in short form for a decision to reduce or refuse an award.
Facts
The applicant (‘T’) was injured when he was shot in the left leg. He applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) for compensation. His application was refused on paper on the grounds of T’s criminal convictions under paragraph 6(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 (‘the 1990 Scheme’). T applied for an oral hearing at which the decision to refuse compensation was confirmed under paragraphs 4(a) and 6(c) of the 1990 Scheme, on the grounds that T had not given a full and true account of the incident. T applied for judicial review of the Board’s decision on the grounds that (i) the Board had placed undue weight on the evidence of a police officer about drugs-related shootings who had no knowledge of the case other than what was contained in a brief crime report; (ii) there was procedural impropriety in relation to the officer’s evidence; (iii) the Board failed to consider making a reduced award; (iv) the reasons given were inadequate; (v) T was misled by the pre-hearing notice and summary; and (vi) the Board’s decision was irrational.
Held, allowing the application
(1) The parts of the officer’s evidence that were criticised were impromptu replies to questions from the Board or its staff advocate. Although the officer indicated he had no knowledge of the case beyond what was in the crime report, he was invited to express opinions which were potentially very damaging to T. The Board’s written reasons were not formulated until over a year after the hearing, which undermined their claim to comprehensiveness. The Board’s view of T’s conduct was probably influenced to a significant extent by the officer’s evidence. It was unreasonable in the public law sense to accord that evidence the weight it was probably given and was therefore unfair.
(2) The issue of procedural impropriety in relation to the officer’s evidence was parasitic upon the earlier ground and did not need to be considered further.
(3) The Board concluded that T should not receive an award. If that conclusion had been in all other respects unassailable, there would have been no need to give further consideration to the possibility of a reduced award. R v CICB ex parte Cook [1996] 2 All ER 144 followed.
(4) Following R v CICB ex parte Moore (unreported, 23 April 1990), the Board was obliged to give reasons in short form for a decision to refuse or reduce an award. Those reasons should contain sufficient detail to enable the reader to know what conclusions were reached on the principal issues but they did not need to deal with every material consideration. In the instant case, the Board’s reasons enabled T to know why he had lost and enabled him to challenge that decision in these proceedings.
(5) The argument that T was misled by the pre-hearing notice and summary was without substance. The summary made it clear that there were issues at to whether the injury was attributable to a crime of violence and whether his own conduct made a full or reduced award inappropriate. The hearing before the Board was in accordance with the prescribed procedure and was within the rules of natural justice.
(6) In the Board’s reasons there were recurrent references to paragraph 4(a) of the Scheme. It was not a requirement of the Scheme that an applicant should give a “full and true account”. It was a requirement that an applicant must satisfy the Board that his injury was “directly attributable to a crime of violence”. Paragraph 4(a) did not illustrate why T’s conduct under paragraph 6(c) was relevant. If T failed to surmount paragraph 4(a) that was the end of the matter. In the circumstances, the Board’s finding that T did not satisfy it under paragraph 4(a) was an irrational finding. The Board’s decision was therefore quashed.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990, paragraphs 4, 6, 8 & 22
Cases referred to in judgment
R v CICB ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330
R v CICB ex parte Parsons (unreported, 17 January 1990)
R v Westminster City Council, ex parte Ermakov [1996] 2 All ER 302
R v CICB ex parte Cook [1996] 2 All ER 144
R v CICB ex parte gambles [1994] PIQR P314
R v CICB ex parte Moore (unreported, 23 April 1990)
Union of Construction etc v Brain [1981] ICR 542
Mr Mahie Abey (instructed by Evans & Company) for the Applicant
Mr Hugo Keith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent
|