Compensating Criminal Injuries Received Abroad
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300623 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Compensating
Criminal
Injuries
Received
Abroad
the sentences for road traffic offences in general.
It
was said that, in this
new
climate of opinion, the courts
must
regard as 'wholly anomalous'
the concept of a road traffic offence in which
the
sentencing court is
forced to disregard
the
fact
that
death has
been
caused. For
that
conclu-
sion, Henry Ucites as authority
the
opinion of Lord Bingham CJ in A-G's
Reference
(No66 of 1996) [1998]1Cr App R (S) 16, but, it
must
be noted,
that was a case in which the driver had consumed alcohol which
put
him beyond
the
prescribed limit
and
that that
factor is often regarded as
the
most
important
factor
when
it comes to sentencing for a road traffic
offence,
although
the
courts usually start
with
the
proposition
that
culpability depends
on
the
degree of criminality of
the
driving. The
question
then
becomes
that
of
the
'degree' to
which
one
should
attach
importance to
the
'chance'
occurrence
that
death
has ensued. R v
Krawec
made
it clear
that
the
court
must
realise
that
the
death
is logically
irrelevant in
any
consideration of
the
degree of moral wrongdoing to be
attributed to
the
driver. Here, however,
the
court
held
that
neither
the
fine
nor
the
period of disqualification was excessive,
though
the
fine was
greater
than
that
recommended by the Magistrates' Association's Guide-
lines 1997.
Compensating Criminal Injuries Received Abroad
R v
Ministry
of
Defence,
ex p
Walker
[1999] 1 WLR 1209
The appellant was a soldier
who
was a
member
of
the
peace-keeping
force in Bosnia under-the resolution of
the
United Nations. The accom-
modation block in
which
he lived was
hit
by a shell fired by a Serbian
tank, it being
unknown
whether
this was a deliberate act targeting
the
British forces or
an
accidental misfire while aiming at some
other
target.
The appellant suffered injuries which required
the
amputation
of a leg.
He applied for compensation
under
the
scheme
which
had
been
estab-
lished by
the
Ministry of Defence some 20 years earlier, which was
intended to
mirror
the
domestic scheme administered by
the
Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board in
the
UK. The Criminal Injuries (Over-
seas) Scheme was
the
subject of a
'commanded
letter' circulated
within
the Ministry in
which
it was stated
that
compensation would
not
be
payable for injury caused by
any
type of violence caused by
the
enemy
where
astate of
war
existed or a warlike situation was declared to exist.
Formal 'Instructions' widely circulated
among
the
armed
forces in 1990
stated
that
the
compensation was payable at
the
discretion of
the
Army
Board or
the
Secretary of State,
but
no
mention
was made of
the
exclusion of injury by
the
violence of
the
enemy
in
war
or warlike
operations. AMinisterial statement in Parliament (made in the context
of peace-keeping principally in Northern Ireland) distinguished
between
peace-keeping
and
warlike operations;
but
alater statement (made in
1994) was to
the
effect
that
injury or
death
due
to
'war
operations or
military activity by warring factions'
were
outside
the
Scheme.
When
the
applicant applied for compensation,
the
Ministry decided
that
the
561
To continue reading
Request your trial