R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. ex parte Tong
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ORR,MR. JUSTICE WALLER |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Civ J0614-1 |
| Date | 14 June 1976 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 127 |
[1976] EWCA Civ J0614-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Divisional Court
The Master of the Rolls
Lord Justice Orr and
Mr. Justice Waller
MR. I. JACOB (instructed by J. G. Haley, Esq., Solicitor, London) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR. K. WOOLF (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Mr. William Tong was a rent collector employed by the London Borough of Ealing. On 14th April, 1970, he, with another man, collected rents from tenants. They put the takings in a car ready to leave the rent office. Suddenly a van pulled up in front of them. Four men rushed out and attacked the rent collectors. The men had woollen masks on their faces. They hit the rent collectors with pickaxe-handles, They pulled them out of the car. They beat Mr. Tong until he fell into the road unconscious. They took the money and went off. They were never caught. Mr. Tong suffered severe head injury. He went to hospital and was off work for some weeks. He did not lose any wages: because his employers paid him whilst he was off work. But he suffered for a long time from headaches, depression and giddiness. He wanted to get compensation for these ill-effects. He could not get it from his assailants. And at common law he could not get it from anyone else. But ever since 1964 the Crown, that is, the executive government, has operated a scheme by which a person like Mr. Tong - who was the victim of criminal violence - can be paid compensation by the State.
It is that scheme which comes up for consideration in this case. I must give an outline of it. The scheme has no statutory sanction. No enactment was passed. No regulations were made. All that happened was that moneys were appropriated by Parliament so as to finance the scheme. The executive Government prepared the scheme, made known its provisions and invited persons like Mr. Tong to apply for compensation. The scheme did not give him, or any one else, a legal right to compensation. Any grant that was made was purely ex gratia. But, nevertheless, the amount was to be assessed much the same as if he had been injured in a road accident by a negligent driver - instead of by a wicked criminal. He was to getcompensation for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. If he had been killed by the assailant or died from the injuries, his widow and dependants were to get compensation for their pecuniary loss much as if he had been killed in a road accident.
In order to administer the scheme, the executive government set up a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It consisted of a Chairman of wide legal experience and eight others, also legally qualified. This Board were to receive applications for compensation and determine them in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. But the whole Board did not sit on every application. The scheme in paragraph 21 provided that, in the first instance, an application should be considered by a single member of the Board. If he considered it a straightforward case, which he could properly. determine on his own, he would decide what the compensation should be. His decision was then communicated to the applicant. If that applicant was satisfied with it - and accepted it - that was the end of the matter. If the applicant was not satisfied, his case was heard by three other members of the Board: and those three would decide it. However, in any case which the single member did not consider straightforward - so that he could not determine it on his own - the single member could refer it to three other members for a hearing.
To return now to Mr. Tong. He was certainly the victim of a crime of violence. His case was directly covered by the scheme. He ought to receive compensation. The only question was, how much? This depended on the extent of his disability. A provisional assessment was made of 20 per cent disability. His application was placed before Sir Ronald Long, a singlemember of the Board. He made an interim award of £50 generally en account. That was on 14th April, 1971. Mr. Tong was asked to sign a receipt accepting it. He signed the receipt on 20th April, 1971, and sent it back and got his £50.
Later on a final assessment was made of his disability. It was assessed at 20 per cent. The case was then sent back to Sir Ronald Long for final determination. On 25th February, 1975, Sir Ronald made his decision. He assessed the final award at £450, that is £400 extra to the interim award of £50. This award was as compensation for his pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Sir Ronald's decision ought to have been communicated to Mr. Tong. The scheme so provides. But it was not communicated to him at all. The reason was because the case-working officer employed by the Board did not get down to that simple task. I suppose he was engaged on other things. He took his time over it. Several days passed - from 25th February, 1973 - and still nothing was done. Then, before the case-worker got down to it, Mr. Tong died. He died on 6th March, 1973, that is, eight working days after Sir Ronald had made his decision. The case-working officer got to know of Mr. Tong's death and asked the Secretary what was to be done. The Secretary took the view - afterwards confirmed by the Board - that no communication should be made because Mr. Tong had died. So nothing was said to his widow at that time. She did not know that Sir Ronald had made the award of £450.
Mr. Tong's Union looked into the case from a different angle. They inquired whether Mr. Tong's death was due to the injuries he received in the attack. For, if it had been, the widow and dependants would have a claim under paragraph 12 of the scheme for their pecuniary loss to be assessed similarly to the Fatal Accidants Acts. But that inquiry came to nothing.His death was not due to the injuries in the attack, but to high blood pressure and heart trouble.
But then the Board very properly thought that the widow should be told about the award by Sir Ronald Long of £450: so that she could make a claim on that account, if so advised. On 15th August, 1974, the Secretary of the Board wrote to the trade union with this information: "In Mr. Tong's case a member of the Board made an assessment of compensation of £450 on 25th February, 1973. News of Mr. Tong's death was received before the award could be notified. The Board's view is that in those circumstances there is no obligation to pay the award to Mrs. Tong or to the executors of Mr. Song's estate…"
On 20th August, 1974, Mrs. Tong's solicitor replied: saying:- "… This appears to me to be grossly unfair. The whole matter appears to depend on how busy your Department is - at any time…".
Seeing that a point of principle emerged, the Board had a special hearing on 16th September, 1974, before Sir William Carter, Q. C. (the Chairman), Mr. Ogden, Q. C. and Mr. Law, Q. C. After full argument and consideration, they held that: "If an applicant dies before he has accepted the amount of compensation offered, the offer lapses, since it is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Marks v Minister of Home Affairs
-
Marks v Minister of Home Affairs
...(1971) 1 Ch 388 (3) (1948) 1 KB 223 (12) (1971) 2 All E.R. 1278 (4) (1962) A.C. 322 (13) (1972) 2 QB 299 (5) (1964) A.C. 40 (14) (1977) 1 All E.R. 171 (6) (1866) A.C. 47 (15) (1980) A.C. 718 (7) (1967) A.C. 13 (16) (1981) 1 QB 778 (8) (1967) 2 QB 617 (17) (1903) 2 W.L.R. 735 (9) (1967) ......
-
Proprietors, Strata Plan No 103 v Developments Advisory Bd
...Lain, [1967] 2 Q.B. 864; [1967] 2 All E.R. 770; (1967), 111 Sol. Jo. 331. (4) R. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd., ex p. Tong, WLR[1976] 1 W.L.R. 1237; [1977] 1 All E.R. 171.[1976] 1 W.L.R. 1237; [1977] 1 All E.R. 171. (5) Rees v. Crane, [1994] 2 A.C. 173; [1994] 1 All E.R. 833. (6) Tr......
-
Marcano v Attorney General
...has done ‘any other act or thing which calls for the intervention of the court’ ( Re v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex P Fong [1976] 1 WLR 1237 ( De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action Fourth edition at p. 27). 17 On the question of public body fettering its own discre......