Where a claimant acquired a criminal conviction after the claim had been referred to a single board member for decision, he was entitled, despite the absence of an explicit rule, to refer the case back to the board. Reasons for a decision should normally be given. ‘The board is not required to reason out why the particular extent to reduction follows from the proved convictions . . Unless the conclusion offends logic – as this conclusion does not – it must stand. Logic does not restrict the effect of repeated offending to the gradual erosion of eligibility.’
Judges:
Sedley J
Citations:
Times 14-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1254
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte Cook CA 22-Dec-1995
Where the board was refusing an application, it need not set out every matter which it had taken into account. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Pearson Admn 11-May-1999
The claimant sought judicial review of the Board’s decision to restrict his award by two thirds for his previous driving convictions of driving with excess alcohol and driving whilst disqualified.
Held: The Board’s decision was for them. There . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.146169