Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2015 UKUT 196 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	JR 4873 2014
Appellant:	R (NJ)
Respondent:	First-tier Tribunal and CICA (CIC)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge N J Wikeley
Date Of Decision:	22/04/2015
Date Added:	12/05/2015
Main Category:	Criminal Injuries Compensation
Main Subcategory:	claims
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2015] AACR 42. Criminal injuries compensation – claims – whether aggravated offence under section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 crime of violence under 2008 Scheme The claimant, who had been cycling down the road, was savaged by a dog which was with, but not under the control of, its owner. The owner was convicted of an aggravated offence under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment (suspended) and the dog made subject to a destruction order. On review the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) decided to withdraw its initial award on the basis that the applicant had not been a victim of a “crime of violence” because the dog had not been deliberately set upon him and its owner had not been reckless in failing to control a known vicious animal. The claimant’s appeal was rejected by the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT). The claimant’s application to the Upper Tribunal (UT) for judicial review was granted and the issue before the UT concerned the proper meaning and application of the term “crime of violence” in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008 in the light of the relevant case law: R (Jones) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2013] UKSC 19; [2013] AACR 25 and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and TS [2014] EWCA Civ 65; [2014] AACR 27. Held, allowing the application, and quashing the decision of the F-tT, that: 1. in principle CICA had acted lawfully in changing its mind, as a review decision was a completely fresh reconsideration of the original decision and there was no guarantee that an existing award would be maintained: it might go up, stay the same, be reduced or be withdrawn (paragraph 9); 2. the proper legal approach required the consideration of two separate questions in deciding whether or not the expression “a crime of violence” applied to the proven facts of a case: (1) whether a criminal offence had been committed, and (2) whether the offence that was committed was a crime of violence (Jones and CICA v F-tT and TS above). The F-tT did not address the second question correctly. Its flawed approach meant that it failed to consider properly all the relevant factual questions in deciding whether or not the crime that had been committed was a crime of violence; in particular it failed to ask itself about the state of mind of the dog owner at the relevant time or to consider fully his conviction for the aggravated offence of causing injury under section 3(1) and the actual sentence imposed on him (paragraphs 11 to 25); 3. the Court of Appeal’s decision in CICA v F-tT and TS was authority for the proposition that an offence under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act was not by its nature (as opposed to its consequences) necessarily a crime of violence. A crime did not become a crime of violence simply because it resulted in injury to the person. But the decision was not authority for the proposition that the commission of an offence under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 could never be a crime of violence for the purposes of the 2008 Scheme (paragraphs 36 to 47); 4. the case had proceeded on the basis that if there had been a crime of violence it was the owner’s aggravated offence under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act. However, in extreme cases of intentional or reckless conduct involving dangerous dogs, it was conceivable that an offence might be committed by the owner under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This would, however, have required actual foresight of the risk of harm on the owner’s part; see Jones and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First tier Tribunal and Doyle [2014] UKUT 556 (AAC) (paragraph 49). The judge remitted the case to a differently constituted tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with his directions.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2015] AACR 42ws.doc