Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2010 UKUT 388 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	JR 1127 2009
Appellant:	CR
Respondent:	First Tier tribunal (SEC) and CICA (Interested Party)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. A. L. Bano
Date Of Decision:	25/10/2010
Date Added:	01/12/2010
Main Category:	Criminal Injuries Compensation
Main Subcategory:	reduction and withholding of awards
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2011] AACR 19. Criminal injuries compensation – reduction and withholding of awards – meaning of “failed to co-operate with the police ... in attempting to bring the assailant to justice” The claimant reported an assault to the police, but when interviewed stated that she did not wish at that time to make an official complaint against her alleged assailants. The police investigated the incident further but no prosecution was made. Her claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that she had failed to co-operate with the police in attempting to bring the assailant to justice (paragraph 13(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001) and the decision was confirmed on review. She appealed and she and the police officer attended the hearing and gave evidence. The tribunal found that the claimant had been presented with options as to action that could be taken by the police, but dismissed the appeal, stating as its reasons that the police investigation and prosecution were discontinued as a result of her unwillingness to give evidence against her alleged assailants. The claimant applied to the Upper Tribunal for the decision of the tribunal to be quashed, arguing that a person can fail to co-operate with another person only if he or she refuses to comply with a request from that person to work to a particular end, or to take some preferred course of action. Held, quashing the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, that: 1. the obligation which underlies paragraph 13(b) is an obligation to co-operate with the police to the extent and in the manner reasonably to be expected of a person making a claim for an ex gratia compensatory payment at public expense, and is not limited to a refusal to comply with a specific request made by the investigating authorities (paragraphs 10 and11); 2. what paragraph 13(b) requires is that the claimant should co-operate with the normal processes for investigating crime and dealing with offenders, irrespective of what course of action is ultimately chosen by the authorities as appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case (paragraph 12); 3. having made a finding that the police officer had presented various options to the claimant, the tribunal was under an obligation to explain why it rejected the claimant’s case that, in choosing one of the options, she had done what was required of her to co-operate with the police in attempting to bring her assailants to justice: Re M (a child) [2005] CLY 67 followed (paragraphs 13 and 14); 4. on the evidence the tribunal was not bound to conclude that the claimant would play no further part in attempting to bring her assailants to justice nor that the police investigation and prosecution were discontinued as a result of the claimant’s unwillingness to make an official complaint (paragraphs 15 and 16); 5. as the tribunal’s reasons did not properly address the central issue raised by the claimant in her appeal and its findings of fact were not supported by the evidence the decision should be quashed as irrational (paragraph 17). The judge remitted the appeal for reconsideration by the First-tier Tribunal.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2011] AACR 19ws.doc