|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
On the facts, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel were entitled to prefer the evidence of the applicant’s GP over the evidence of a psychiatrist instructed for the purpose of preparing a medico-legal report. The psychiatrist’s conclusions were largely, if not entirely based on what the applicant had told him and the Panel had found that the applicant was not a wholly credible witness. The Court found there were “abundantly clear grounds” justifying the Panel in reaching the decision that they did.
Facts
The Applicant (‘R’) was working as a cashier at a petrol station, in May 1998, when an armed robbery took place. He applied to the Criminal Injures Compensation Authority (‘the Authority’) and was awarded £1,000 on the basis that he had suffered tariff band 1- temporal mental anxiety as a result of the incident pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 (‘The Scheme’). On appeal, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (‘the Panel’) considered the extent and duration of R’s mental and/or psychological problems. Oral evidence was heard from R and written evidence was received from Dr Kapenda, R’s GP, as well as from Dr Britto, a consultant psychiatrist, instructed by R for the purpose of obtaining a medico-legal report. The evidence of the GP was that he had seen R in October 1998, approximately 5 months post-accident and two weeks after R’s application for criminal injuries compensation. The GP reported that at that stage R was complaining of symptoms, however by the time of the next appointment a month later he appeared to have made a full recovery. By contrast the report of Dr Britto concluded that R was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder of a chronic variety between May 1998 and approximately mid summer 1999. The Panel had regard to the fact that Dr Britto had not been R’s treating psychiatrist and had been reliant upon what R told him about his symptoms and recovery. The Panel did not find R to be a reliable witness, as there were inconsistencies in his evidence and he told the Panel that he had not been honest with his GP.
Held, refusing the application
(1) There were abundantly clear grounds justifying the Panel reaching the conclusion that they did.
(2) The Panel was entitled not to accept R as a wholly credible witness and it was entitled to prefer the evidence of R’s general practitioner over the evidence of Dr Britto which was largely, if not wholly, based on what R had told him.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
1996 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme,
Cases referred to in judgment
R v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, ex parte Bennett, Independent 2 October 2000
Representation
Mr P Gillott (instructed by Walker Cromptons) for the Applicant;
Mr S Wilken (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the respondent
|