|
Headnote |
Summary of decision:
Judicial review of a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel to make an award for a disabling mental disorder lasting 28 weeks where the applicant contended that the evidence disclosed either a permanent disabling mental disorder or one lasting for more than 1 year. A mental disorder was "disabling" if it significantly impaired a person's functioning in some important aspect of his or her life. The standard to be adopted when applying the test was that of "the ordinary person adopting a sensible view of life". The Panel had considered the evidence and come to a conclusion that was within the range of decisions open to it. The application for judicial review was therefore refused.
Facts:
On 18 August 1996 the applicant, B, then aged 48, was the victim of a violent and unprovoked attack by a young man with a metal bar, whilst she was walking to work. She sustained injuries to her head and body. As a result of the injuries and shock suffered, B was off work for a period of three months. In addition to the physical injuries suffered, B suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She received some counselling for a period of four months, following the accident. B applied for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority ('the Authority'). The application was refused by a claims officer. B applied for a review of that decision. The Authority obtained a report from B's GP, who reported that she was suffering ongoing “post-traumatic stress with persistent anxiety, nightmares and insomnia…” A second claims officer reviewed the evidence and awarded B £1,000 for “temporary mental anxiety”. B exercised her right of appeal to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel ('the Panel'). B sought and relied on two reports by a consultant psychiatrist whose prognosis was that she was “likely to have continuing emotional symptoms from this point on” and that “some symptoms are going to permanently remain for her”. In May 1999, the Panel allowed B's appeal and increased her award to £2,650, comprising the full award for a disabling mental disorder confirmed by psychiatric diagnosis lasting up to 28 weeks (£2,500) plus chipped tooth – level 1 (£100) and minor multiple injuries – level 1 (£50). B was aggrieved by that decision and sought to challenge it by way of judicial review. B submitted that the award for PTSD was too low and that she should have received £7,500.00 because her mental disorder was disabling for more than a year, alternatively £20,000.00 because her mental disorder was permanently disabling. B argued that the Panel attached undue significance to her return to work three months after the accident and that in the absence of any contradictory evidence, the Panel should have accepted in full the evidence of the Consultant Psychiatrist and the GP.
Held, refusing the application:
(1) A mental disorder was “disabling” if it significantly impaired a person’s functioning in some important aspect of his or her own life. The last sentence of note 2(b) to the Tariff in the 1996 Scheme in relation to shock exemplified this approach but was not exhaustive. The standard to be adopted when applying the test was that of “the ordinary person adopting a sensible view of life”. R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, ex parte Embling, [2000] PIQR Q361 applied.
(2) The Panel members correctly interpreted the meaning of the phrase “disabling mental disorder”. They quite properly attached some significance, but not excessive significance, to the fact that the applicant returned to work after three months. Whilst the Panel was obliged to take into account the medical reports, it was not obliged to agree with everything contained in those reports. The Panel members heard the applicant’s account of the events for themselves and made their own assessment. The Panel was perfectly entitled on the material before it to conclude that B's mental disorder was disabling for no more than 28 weeks. Although the reviewing court may not have come to the same conclusion, the Panel members asked themselves the correct questions, considered the relevant evidence and came to a decision which lay within the range of possible decisions.
(3) In these circumstances, the court could not interfere by way of way of judicial review.
Parts of the scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment:
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 paragraphs 2, 25, 26, 58, 60, 75,
Cases referred to in the judgment:
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, ex parte Embling [2000] PIQR Q361
Representation:
Andrew McNamara, instructed by Thompsons (Sheffield), for B.
Hugo Keith and Mr S Naqshbandi, instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, for the Panel.
|