Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2012 UKUT 280 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	JR 2614 2011
Appellant:	R (RW)
Respondent:	First-Tier Tribunal (CIC)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge M. Rowland
Date Of Decision:	17/07/2012
Date Added:	05/09/2012
Main Category:	Criminal Injuries Compensation
Main Subcategory:	reduction and withholding of awards
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2013] AACR 8 Criminal injuries compensation – failure to take, without delay, all reasonable steps to inform the police of the incident – relevant considerations for a decision to withhold or reduce an award On 20 November 2006 the claimant, a retired police inspector, was hit in the eye by an object thrown by a group of youths who ran off. He did not report the incident until one month later on 22 December 2006 and claimed criminal injuries compensation in January 2007. Under paragraph 13(a) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority may withhold or reduce an award where it considers that a claimant has failed to take, without delay, all reasonable steps to inform the police of the incident. The Authority rejected the claimant’s claim in view of his delay in reporting the incident and the decision was maintained on review. The claimant appealed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel on the ground that initially he did not think the incident was serious and he did not wish to waste police time, as there was nothing they would have been able to do. Moreover, when the extent of his injury became apparent, he did try to report the matter more than once but found the local police station to be closed on each occasion. He did not attend the hearing, being disabled and by then living in France, and the appeal panel did not ask the police officer, who did attend the hearing, any questions as to the opening hours of the police station or the likely response to the claimant having reported the incident immediately. The appeal panel dismissed the appeal on the ground that the claimant’s explanation for the late reporting of the incident to the police was unacceptable and the delay had seriously hampered any opportunity to investigate the incident. The claimant applied to the Upper Tribunal for judicial review of that decision and the case was transferred to the High Court and back to the Upper Tribunal for its consideration. Held, granting the application for judicial review and quashing the decision of the appeal panel, that: 1. paragraph 13(a) of the Scheme, coupled with paragraph 13(b), implies that a person who seeks compensation from the State in respect of a criminal injury ought to assist the State to prosecute the offender and it also enables an award to be withheld where a claimant’s failure to report the incident immediately has meant that there has not been a proper opportunity to investigate it (paragraph 24); 2. the reason for a claimant failing to report an incident promptly and the consequence of the failure are relevant to whether an award should be withheld or reduced and, in considering whether the claimant took “all reasonable steps”, regard must be had to the position as it would have appeared to him at the time (paragraphs 26 and 27); 3. the appeal panel erred in law either because it regarded the claimant’s motivation and the accuracy of his understanding as to the likely effect of immediately reporting the incident as irrelevant or because it failed to record sufficient findings in the light of the way in which the claimant had put his case (paragraph 29); 4. the appeal panel also erred in law in not giving any indication as to why its findings led to the conclusion that no award should be made and, in particular, failing to have regard to the size of the award that was to be withheld (paragraph 30); 5. any penalty, in terms of the loss or reduction of an award, must be proportionate to what the Scheme regards as misconduct, having regard to the purpose of paragraph 13, and it is for this reason that the size of an award is relevant in some cases (paragraphs 31 to 38). The judge remitted the case for reconsideration by the First-tier Tribunal (as successor of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel).
Decision(s) to Download:	JR 2614 2011-00.doc [2013] AACR 8ws.doc