Case Summary


Citation 2001  QBD  unreported  -
Decision Date 22/10/2001
Scheme Pre-tariff Schemes
Paragraph Number 19
Keywords Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 – Paragraph 19 – Compensation – Procedure - Deduction of Benefits – Award made subject to condition – Applicant challenging condition
Headnote Summary of decision Permission to apply for judicial review was refused in a case where the Panel had heard evidence and come to a factual conclusion and there were no grounds for finding that their decision had been irrational or procedurally flawed. Facts On 30 June 1993 the applicant (‘C’) was a victim of a criminal assault. He made an application under the 1990 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (‘the Scheme’). The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) made a decision about C’s application on 16 October 2000 awarding him damages but deducting past benefits in the sum of £192,000. The Board was concerned that C may have changed his mind about his claimed intention to live in France and thereby achieve double recovery and so refused to make an award that would have allowed him to change his mind. They required that a trust be set up so as to prevent C from being able to take advantage of the system by becoming entitled to the award plus state benefits. C appealed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel who heard his appeal on 27 February 2001. They heard evidence and agreed with the Board that C should be required him to set up a trust to manage the monies received by way of criminal injuries compensation. C applied for judicial review of the Panel’s decision on the basis that their decision was irrational or procedurally flawed. This application was refused on the papers and was renewed at a hearing before Mr Justice Silber. Held, refusing permission to apply for judicial review. (1) The question of C’s intention to live in France was a matter of fact upon which the Panel heard live evidence. The Panel was not satisfied that C intended to live in France and that this aspect of the claim was speculative. This constituted a clear answer to the allegation of irrationality in the decision of the Panel about C’s intentions. (2) Further the application for judicial review having been made out of time this was not a case where it was appropriate to grant an extension. The application for permission to apply for judicial review was accordingly dismissed. Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment 1990 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, paragraphs 5 & 19