Leave to Appeal Challenged at Substantive Hearing
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300539 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Leave
to
Appeal
Challenged
at
Substantive
Hearing
party, is a principle supported by authority: see, for England, R v Paul
[1920] 2KB 183;
d.
for Scotland, HM
Advocate
v
Milne
(1866) 5Irv 229.
Although, therefore, the Order
under
which these proceedings were
brought contained no express provision on this precise question
and
the judicial authorities did
not
directly deal with
the
circumstances of
the case,
the
House's decision is in accordance with
the
principles
enunciated in
the
past.
Leave to Appeal Challenged at Substantive Hearing
R v
Criminal
Injuries
Compensation
Board,
ex p A [1999] 2WLR
974
The applicants for the payment of compensation by
the
Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board
(CICB),
having been refused compensa-
tion, applied to
the
High Court for judicial review of the Board's deci-
sion. That application was refused by the High Court, whose decision
was upheld in
the
Court of Appeal,
but
on
further appeal to the House
of Lords
the
matter was remitted to the Board for reconsideration. The
applicant
had
been
the
victim of two
men
who, professing to be mem-
bers of
the
ClO,
had
entered
her
house, sexually assaulted her, stolen
money
and
valuables,
and
had
vandalised the house before leaving.
There
had
been considerable unexplained delays in
her
making com-
plaints
and
in
her
applying to the Board for compensation and, in
consequence, the Board, the judge and the Court of Appeal agreed that
had
been
examined by a police doctor,
but
his report
had
not
been
put
before
the
Board;
and
the
comments
on
the report by the police officer to
the
Board
had
been something less
than
informative. Although leave to apply for
judicial review was given, notwithstanding
the
delay, Popplewell Jheld
that he was nevertheless entitled to rely on the unexplained delay (in
making the application for leave)
and
refused the substantive applica-
tion pursuant to
RSC
Ord 53 r4(1). The Court of Appeal held
that
he
had
been in error in so deciding;
but
it nevertheless dismissed
the
application for compensation on its merits.
It is provided in RSC Ord 53 r4that application for judicial review
shall be made 'promptly' and, unless there is 'good reason' for extending
the time, within three months of the incidentwhich affords
the
grounds
that
when
the
High Court considers that there has been
undue
delay in
applying for judicial review, it may refuse leave to apply or refuse any
relief sought,
if
agrant of relief would cause substantial hardship to
another
or would be detrimental to good administration.
The questions which were in issue on the further appeal, to
the
House
of Lords, were
whether
(1)
when
leave to apply for judicial review
out
of time has been granted, the question of
the
delay in applying for leave
can be re-opened on the subsequent hearing of the application for
compensation on its merits,
and
(2) in the instant case,
the
omission to
have
the
police doctor's report before the Board
meant
that
the
true facts
467
To continue reading
Request your trial