The Right to Reconsider one's Decision
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300502 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Rightto
Reconsider
one's
Decision
conclusive proof of its
own
correctness: cf
Stupple
v
Royal
Insurance
Company
Ltd [1971]1 QB 50. And in Nawrot v
Hampshire
Chief
Constable,
The
Independent,
7
June
1992, Woolf LJ emphasised that the House of
Lords in Hunter's case confined its decision to convicted persons
who
were plaintiffs
who
initiated the litigation to attack the conviction.
Smedley Jtherefore concluded that
'to
use the doctrine of abuse. of
process so as to prevent the defendant from having reheard with such
new
evidence as he seeks to adduce, the issue of his guilt would be to
cause manifest unfairness'; The court therefore declined to
make
an
order striking out the
defence-a
decision which
meant
that Brinks Ltd v
Abu
Saleh
was
not
followed.
The Right to Reconsider one's Decision
R v
CICB,
ex p
Moore
[1999] 2 All ER 90
A refuse collector
who
was assaulted and injured at work applied to the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
(CICB)
for an award of com-
pensation
and
it was originally considered by the Board that such an
award should be made. Before he received an award, he was convicted
of a serious offence and the Board's panel
then
decided that no award
should be made to him, Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation
(CIC) Scheme as revised in 1990, the Board is to take into account the
character of each applicant, as demonstrated by any criminal convic-
tions,
and
the single member
who
had considered his case had rejected
it on this ground, by virtue of para 6(c) of the Scheme. The applicant had
then
sought a full hearing and a panel of three members
had
decided
that: (1) he was entitled to an award, (2) that 25 per cent of the award
should be deducted under para 6(c), (3) the case be adjourned to allow
the single member to calculate the
amount
of the award,
and
(4)
mean.
while the applicant should receive an interim payment of £500. Before
he had consented to, or received, this offer, the Board's attention was
drawn
to his later serious criminal conviction
and
informed
him
that
there would be a rehearing. At that rehearing, the Board decided that no
award should be made. He applied for judicial review of that decision.
Under the heading 'Scope of the Scheme', para 6 of the CIC Scheme
provides that the Board may withhold or reduce compensation if they
consider that '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 inappro-
priate for a full amount, or any
amount
at all, to be granted. The Scheme
also provides, by para 12, that in the assessment of compensation on the
basis of common law damages more than one payment may be made
where
eligibility for compensation has been established,
but
a final
assessment cannot be made. Where an interim award has been made,
the Board may decide to make a reduced
amount
or an increased
amount
or refuse to make any further payment at
any
stage before
391
To continue reading
Request your trial