R v The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MOSES |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1999 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] EWCA Civ J0511-8 |
| Date | 11 May 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | CO/1002/98 |
[1999] EWCA Civ J0511-8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Moses
CO/1002/98
MR D T ECCLES (instructed by Thomas Saul & Co., Whitefield, Manchester M45 6TF) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR R SINGH [MR J MOFFATT-JUDGMENT ONLY] (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
.
In this application in which I gave leave, the Applicant, Mr Pearson, seeks a review of the decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ("the Board") dated 19th December 1997. The Applicant is now 35.
On 12th August 1995, late in the evening, the Applicant was in a public house in Manchester with his girlfriend and some friends. He was asked by another friend to get back a laser torch that had been taken from that other friend by another person in the public house. The Applicant did try to retrieve the torch, speaking to the other man but with no effect. That other man assaulted the Applicant, knocking him to the ground, as a result of which, he suffered injuries which consisted of a fractured jaw, fractured cheekbone, leaving him with residual numbness to the left side of the face and headaches which, certainly at the time of the Board's decision, he was suffering from three times a week.
The single member of the Board decided that, having regard to the Applicant's previous convictions, there should be no award. The decision is recorded in a letter dated 26th August 1996, which said:
"… The applicant possibly regards his previous crimes as motoring offences, but that is not how "the public or the board views them, they were all serious offences. Any award would be inappropriate. …"
The Applicant proceeded to seek an oral hearing, as he was entitled to, before the full Board. The full Board awarded him £4,000 for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, £2,000 for loss of earnings, making it £6,000 in all, but reduced that award to one-third of the total award by two-thirds because of his previous convictions.
The Applicant's previous convictions
It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that it was wholly unreasonable to reduce the award by two-thirds in the light of those previous convictions. Those convictions were: a conviction of being in charge of a motorcar whilst unfit through drink or drugs on 21st August 1986 by Bury Magistrates, for which he was fined £50 and his licence was endorsed; an offence of driving with excess alcohol on 8th August 1991 at Oldham Magistrates' Court, for which he was fined £80 and disqualified for 12 months (the minimum disqualification); and another offence on 22nd April 1992 by Manchester City Magistrates for an offence of driving whilst disqualified, for which he was put on probation for nine months, for driving with excess alcohol which he was disqualified for three years and put on probation for nine months concurrent, and for the driving with no insurance, for which he was put on probation for nine months.
There was, as the Board recorded, powerful evidence that since that time the Applicant's character had improved and indeed there were positive reports about him. The Board's decision in relation to the issue of his previous convictions is given between pages 62 and 63 of my bundle. Having recited those previous convictions, the Board went on to say:
"The applicant advised us of the circumstances surrounding his convictions, the personal difficulties he was experiencing at the time the offences occurred, and his deep remorse for his actions. We were also greatly assisted by information contained in a letter forwarded from Mrs Weale, the applicant's former probation officer and by character references submitted by Mr Webster of British Gas, Captain Forrest of the Parachute Regiment and Mr Smith of MacLean and Nuttall Ltd.
We fully accepted the applicant's sincerity in relation to the remorse he now feels in connection with the offences he committed. We also fully accepted that he was now a responsible and law-abiding citizen, and that his last conviction had occurred over 3 years before the incident for which he was claiming compensation. However, while giving due consideration to all those factors we were of the view that the offences committed were all of such a very serious nature that they could not be ignored completely. We also took the view that the age of the convictions, especially the last and most serious conviction, was not such as to preclude our proper consideration thereof.
We concluded that, notwithstanding the applicant's explanation for the offences committed, his remorse, and the fact he was now a more mature individual, it would be inappropriate that a full award from public funds should be granted in this case. Nevertheless, we did consider it appropriate to take into account all those factors spoken to by the applicant and supported by the references produced in support of his application, and in the exercise of our discretion, we "concluded that an award should not be withheld completely. In all the circumstances we considered that an award with a two-thirds reduction should be made. …"
The Scheme provides, as is well-known, that:
"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 — and, in applications under paragraphs 15 and
16 … [which do not apply] — it is inappropriate that a full award, or any award at all, be granted."
See paragraph 6(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990.
It is accepted that the Board may reduce or even withhold an award notwithstanding that the previous convictions had nothing to do with the attack which led to the injuries. It is further accepted that the issue is for the Board. The Board consists of eminent and highly experienced lawyers. It is for them to evaluate whether it is appropriate to reduce or withhold an award in the light of previous convictions of an Applicant. Such a value judgment can only be impugned if the decision is outwith the range of decisions the Board could make in that exercise of evaluation: see R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thompstone [1984] 1 WLR 1234. At page 1239D–E the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, said:
"In each case, although different categories of circumstances can be taken into account, the issue is the same. Is the applicant an appropriate recipient of an ex gratia compensatory payment made at the public expense? As with all discretionary decisions, there will be cases where the answer is clear one way or the other and cases which are on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial