LM's Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen J |
| Judgment Date | 19 September 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] NIQB 68 |
| Date | 19 September 2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2007 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2007] NIQB 68 Ref:
GILC5927
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
19/9/07
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY LM
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF THE COMPENSATION
AGENCY REFUSING COMPENSATION
_______________
GILLEN J
Application
[1] In this matter the applicant seeks a declaration that the decision of the
Compensation Agency (CA) taken on 20 September 2006 refusing the
applicant’s claim for criminal injuries was unreasonable, unlawful and void
and should be quashed. Secondly for a declaration that the decisions of the
CA between 12 January 2007 and 26 April 2007 in which they refused to
accept the applicant’s applications for a review of the decision of 20
September 2006 on the grounds that the application was outside the statutory
time limit were unreasonable, unlawful and void and should be quashed.
Background
[2] The applicant in this case is a young female who alleges that she was
raped on 1 August 2003 when she was 15 years of age. Thereafter she
applied, by her mother and next friend, for compensation under the Northern
Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2002 (“the Scheme”). This
Scheme was drawn up by the Secretary of State in exercise of the powers
conferred by him by Articles 3 to 8 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation
(Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (“the 2002 Order”), a draft of which had been
approved by both Houses of Parliament.
[3] It was the applicant’s case that she had been raped and subjected to
sexual assault on 1 August 2003 by a youth who was unknown to her and in
whose company she had been earlier on the evening in question.
2
[4] It was common case that the applicant had been untruthful to the
police when initially reporting her allegation. Paragraph 13 of her application
records as follows:
“I should say however that when I initially spoke to
the police I was not entirely truthful about the events
of that night. I was initially very confused about the
whole thing. I was not confused about the incident
itself, but was confused about what I should do, and
what my parents would think. I had been in a
Protestant area, and I had been drinking and I had
gotten into a car with people I didn’t know. I thought
that my parents might blame me for this or think that
it was my fault. For that reason when I originally told
my parents what had happened, and when I
originally spoke to the police, I pretended that this
rape happened in the street near our area and I did
not mention that I had been drinking”.
[5] The police had been contacted on 2 August 2003. The applicant was
medically examined and although various injuries were found the doctor’s
findings neither confirmed nor refuted the allegation of recent sexual
intercourse.
[6] The application for the Criminal Injuries Compensation was made on
behalf of the applicant on 6 October 2003. The applicant gave a written
statement to the police on 27 October 2003 which was the untruthful statement
referred to in paragraph 4 above. On 14 May 2005 she made a revised police
witness statement setting out the circumstances upon which she currently
relies.
[7] Mr McCallion, the solicitor acting on behalf of the applicant, recorded in
an affidavit of 20 June 2004 at paragraph 17 the following sequence of events:
“17. On 14 May 2005 the applicant made a revised
police statement, detailing properly the circumstances
in which the rape had taken place. It would appear
however that the applicant had indicated the true
circumstances of the incident to the police at some
time earlier as police had already located the suspect
and arrested and charged him by mid May 2005. In
this revised witness statement the applicant accepted
that on the relevant night she had been drinking
alcohol, had gotten into a car with youths she didn’t
know, and had travelled to the Shankill area of
Belfast. The applicant explained in her witness
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Bryson Recycling Limited’s Application
...21 April 2011. However, time begins to run from the date of the decision, not when the applicant is informed of it [see LM’s Application [2007] NIQB 68 para 20] and the clear terms of Order 53, rule 4(2)]. [73] The applicant’s grounding affidavit did not explain the substantial delay. This ......
-
Carson’s (Eileen) Application (Leave Stage)
...relation to the request for a review of the decision has been considered by Gillen J in the case of Re LM (Criminal Reviews Compensation) [2007] NIQB 68. At paragraph [51] of his judgment he states: “I have concluded that the wording in the Scheme is so clear and the intended consequence of......