Meehan's (Mary) Application and decision of CICAPNI and The Department of Justice
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy LJ |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NICA 42 |
| Date | 23 November 2018 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2018] NICA 42
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: TRE10744
Delivered: 23/11/2018
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
ON APPEAL FROM
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MARY MEEHAN
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF CICAPNI
and
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DoJ)
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, Treacy LJ & Maguire J
________
TREACY LJ (delivering the Judgment of the Court)
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal from the judgment of the Rt Honourable Sir Paul Girvan
given on 1 February 2018 whereby he dismissed the Applicant's judicial review.
There is also a cross-appeal by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in relation to some
aspects of the same judgement.
Factual Background
[2] The Applicant's judicial review relates to a refusal to grant her criminal injury
compensation in respect of physical and alleged sexual abuse which she suffered
between February 1979 and October 1980 when she was a girl aged between 9-11
years. After the Applicant’s mother died in October 1977 the assailant moved into
the family home and lived as a partner of the Applicant’s father. Physical abuse of
the applicant by the assailant began initially involving hair pulling, tripping up the
2
applicant and throwing her clothes on the floor. The abuse, however, got worse. The
partner had a child by her relationship with the applicant's father. Following the
father's sentence of imprisonment in 1979 the assailant remained living in the home
looking after the applicant and the other children. The applicant asserts that she was
subjected to appalling physical and sexual abuse between February 1979 and
October 1980 at the hands of the assailant. Eventually the applicant was taken into
care in October 1980. She claims that as a result of intimidation she moved to
Coventry in 2002. She moved back to Northern Ireland in 2008 and decided to report
her abuse to the police. The assailant was prosecuted for the abuse at Belfast Crown
Court in July 2013 when she pleaded guilty to several counts of child cruelty and
assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Following her plea on these counts the
charges relating to the alleged sexual abuse were 'left on the books' by the
prosecution.
[3] After the trial the Applicant lodged an application for criminal injury
compensation under the Northern Ireland Criminal Injury Compensation Scheme
2009 [“the 2009 scheme”]. Her application was refused by the deciding officer and
her appeal against that decision was refused by the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Appeals Panel for Northern Ireland (CICAPNI), the first respondent in her judicial
review. The Panel concluded on the facts before them that the Applicant and her
assailant were living together in the same household as members of the same family
at the time of the abuse and, in that circumstance, no compensation could be paid to
the Applicant under the terms of the 2009 scheme.
[4] The reasons given by the panel for its decision included the following:
“... in our view, para 7(c) of the 2009 scheme acts as a
complete bar to eligibility to apply for compensation
where the injury was sustained before 1st July 1988 and
the victim and assailant were living together at the time
as members of the same family”.
This finding is an expression of, and an application of, what is known in
Northern Ireland as the 'same household rule', and it is this rule which is impugned
in this case.
The Judicial Review
[5] The Order 53 Statement grounding the Applicant's judicial review is directed
against both CICAPNI as the decision maker and against the Department of Justice
[DoJ] which has been responsible for the terms of the scheme since that
responsibility was devolved to it in 2010.
[6] In summary the Order 53 Statement claims that the decision refusing this
Applicant compensation for her injuries because of the application of the same
household rule:
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Forgrave's (Thomas) Application for Judicial Review and in the matter of the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019
...that an “assertable right, of an individual and economic nature, to social benefits” enjoyed the ECHR protection. 4 [15] In Re Meehan [2018] NICA 42, the Court of Appeal found that the right to apply for compensation under a discretionary criminal injuries scheme is a possession within A1P1......