R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Evans
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE DYSON |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWHC J0517-1 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 17 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | CO/3259/93 |
[1995] EWHC J0517-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Before: Mr Justice Dyson
CO/3259/93
MR N INGLIS-JONES QC (Instructed by Stephen Martin and Son,Surrey KT3 6DA) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR M FORDHAM (Instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
( )
Wednesday, 17th May 1995
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, whom I will refer to as the Board, delivered on 12th January 1993, refusing to make any award of compensation to the Applicant in respect of injuries suffered by him as a result of an assault on 23rd January 1988. The refusal was made under paragraph 6(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which so far as material provides:
"6. The Board may withhold or reduce compensation if they consider that-
…
(c) having regard to the conduct of the applicant before, during or after the events giving rise to the claim or to his character as shown by his criminal convictions or unlawful conduct… it is inappropriate that a full award, or any award at all, be granted."
The facts are as follows: on 23rd January 1988 the Applicant, who was 34 years of age at the time, was in company with three colleagues from work. As he was walking across the northern side of Leicester Square in the West End of London he was the victim of a savage and unprovoked attack by a group of youths. They clubbed him on the head with a heavy object, kicked and punched him whilst he was on the ground. He was taken to St Stephen's Hospital, Fulham, by ambulance. He sustained injuries including comminuted fractures of the nasal and ethmoid bone. His fractures were reduced by an operation under general anaesthetic on 27th January 1988. He was discharged two days later.
On 15th February 1988 he was readmitted to hospital for an operation to correct the deformity to his nose with the insertion of an internal nasal pin, and a haematoma to the left maxillary sinus was evacuated. He returned to his home in Dyfed where he continued to be under medical treatment. In March 1989 he had a third operation, a septoplasty. At that time there was still evidence of infection. He was discharged on 20th April 1989. As a result of these serious injuries he has suffered a permanent loss of the sense of smell. Moreover, his nose is permanently bent and congested.
Following the incident he returned to work briefly. He was unable, however, to continue and his business failed and he has not worked since that time. It is also right to point out that until, I think, November 1987 he had been in continious employment ever since he left school. He also suffered permanent psychological damage as a result of his experience. In April 1991 his GP reported that he was suffering from anxiety and stress and a Dr Ghosh reported, in October 1991, that he had undergone a personality change involving reduced self-confidence and poor self-esteem. He continues to suffer from depression, poor concentration and impaired recent memory.
The reason why the Board refused compensation was that the Applicant had, on 22nd January 1990, pleaded guilty to a number of offences under Section 55 of the Social Security Act 1986, of obtaining DSS benefit by deception. The three offences were committed on 26th January and 4th and 6th April 1988. The Applicant also asked for 15 other similar offences, dating from 14th December 1987 until 23rd May 1988, to be taken into consideration. Of the total of 15 offences that were taken into consideration by the Magistrates, six were committed before the date of the assault, which is the subject of the application before me.
As I have said, the Applicant pleaded guilty on 22nd January 1990. He did so without the benefit of legal advice. He was conditionally discharged for a period of two years on each of the three charges to which he pleaded guilty. The total sum involved in the deceptions was £1,300. According to the evidence before me no order for compensation was made against him, on the basis that the Department of Social Security would deduct the amount in question at source from the benefits otherwise payable to the Applicant.
At one stage, an important feature of the present proceeding involved a consideration of the Applicant's state of mind when he pleaded guilty to those charges, and his state of mind in relation to the offences themselves. Before me today, however, Mr Inglis-Jones does not seek to go behind the convictions and, in the light of the way in which the submissions have been developed before me, it is not necessary to consider the evidence that the Applicant gave to the Board as to the circumstances of the offences.
On 10th February 1988 Mr Evans made a written application to the Board for compensation. His application was considered by the single member, Mr Donald Robertson QC. He disallowed the application and made the following observations:
"'In January 1990 the applicant pleaded guilty to 3 charges of making false representation to obtain benefits and asked for another 15 similar matters to be taken into account. He has been ordered to repay £1,300. The Board is dispensing public money. In terms of paragraph 6(c) of the Scheme I have to consider whether a full award or any award at all is appropriate having regard to the applicant's character. Having regard to the applicant's fraudulent actions in relation to public funds and also to his giving false information to the Board about the matter it is not appropriate that any award be made. Compensation is withheld under Paragraph 6(c) of the Scheme.'"
I need say no more about the reference to the giving of false information to the Board about the matter, since that did not form any part of the basis for the decision that the Board ultimately made. What is, however, important is that it was made abundantly clear by the single member that one of the reasons for disallowing the claim was that the convictions related to fraudulent actions involving public funds.
The Applicant then made a written application on 24th May 1994 for a hearing before two or more members of the Board. In the application, his solicitors set out in summary the reasons why the Applicant considered that the decision of the single member to refuse the application was unjust. These were:
"(i) Apart from the said conviction for dishonesty I have only one previous conviction for a motoring offence.
(ii) Through my solicitors I have immediately informed the Board of my said conviction for dishonesty. The sentencing court took an extremely lenient view and gave me a conditional discharge.
(iii) I am not a person who can be properly and fairly described as being of 'criminal habits'
(iv) "The Scheme" operated by this Board is not intended to exclude from compensation somebody like myself."
The matter first came before the Board on 10th October 1991. The hearing was adjourned at the request of the Applicant's counsel so that further evidence could be submitted by his solicitors, including evidence as to the dates of the offences to which the Applicant pleaded guilty, and the dates of the encashment of the DSS payments. Following that adjournment, the hearing came before a differently constituted Board comprising Mr ^^ G Hamilton QC, Mr Crawford Lyndsey QC, and Mr Charles Whitby QC. The hearing was convened on 12th January 1993.
According to the affidavits of Jennifer Portelli, sworn on behalf of the Applicant, submissions were made to the Board by counsel acting for the Applicant. These including the following:
(i) that it was wrong in principle for a victim of a violent crime to have his application for compensation refused because of convictions for offences unrelated to the incident which had resulted in his injuries,
(ii) that the Board should accept the oral and medical evidence before it to conclude [Mr Evans] should not have pleaded Guilty at Haverford West Magistrates' Court to charges under section 55(1) of the Social Security Act 1986;"
In other words, that the Board should go behind his convictions:
(iii) alternatively, on the oral evidence of [Mr Evans] and Mr Hunt the Board was entitled to conclude [Mr Evans] was not Guilty of the charges put to him because an offence under section 55(1) of the 1986 Act is only made out if a false representation or statement is made for the purpose of obtaining financial benefit whilst [Mr Evans] had signed on in order to enjoy the continued benefit of the DSS Job Club;
(iv) that even if the Board was not prepared to go behind [Mr Evans's] convictions, consideration should not have been given as to whether these were sufficiently serious as to fall within the ambit of paragraph 6(c);
(v) that even though the Board were satisfied the relevant paragraph applied, it should consider [Mr Evans'] character as a whole, including his previous good character;
(vi) the Board should consider whether or not to reduce rather than withhold an award altogether."
At the conclusion of the hearing the Board retired and then returned to announce its decision to refuse compensation. The Board gave very brief reasons orally on that occasion. They merely said that they were not prepared to go behind the convictions. In his affidavit Mr Whitby deposes additionally that he is confident that the Board made it clear not only that they could not go behind the convictions, but that they had heard the Applicant's explanation and felt unable to accept it.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial