The claimant had been riding his cycle. A dog, known to be aggressive, chased him, he swerved ino the path of a car and was severely injured. His claim was rejected by the appellant saying that no crime of violence had been involved. CICA now appealed against a reversal of that decision.
Held: The appeal succeeded. What amounts to a crime of violence was to be judged by the nature of the act, and not its results. The first tier tribunal had not explained how in law the criminal offence of failing to control the dangerous dog amounted in this case to a crime of violence, and ‘the offence in this case could only be described as a crime of violence if one were to have regard to its consequences rather than its nature.’ That would have been the wrong approach in law.
Moore-Bick, Tomlinson, McCombe LJJ
 EWCA Civ 65
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb CA 1987
Interpretation of CICB Scheme
The court should not construe the scheme as if it were a statute but as a public announcement of what the Government was willing to do. This entails the court deciding what would be a reasonable and literate man’s understanding of the circumstances . .
Cited – Jones v First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) CA 12-Apr-2011
The claimant had been driving his lorry. A man jumped in front of a second lorry in an apparent attempt to commit suicide. In a failed attempt to avoid the suicide, the second lorry crashed into the claimant causing catastrophic injuries. The . .
Cited – Regina v Bezzina, Regina v Codling, Regina v Elvin CACD 7-Dec-1993
The offence under section 3(1), requiring the owner to keep a dangerous dog under control, is one of strict liability. The court noted the difference in wording between the sections.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘Accordingly, we come to the conclusion . .
Cited – Regina – v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, ex parte August; Similar CA 18-Dec-2000
For the purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, a juvenile but willing participant in an act of buggery, is not deemed to be a victim of a crime of violence. The purpose of the section is to disapprove of such activity in general, and . .
Cited – Jones v First Tier Tribunal and Another SC 17-Apr-2013
The claimant had been injured when a lorry driver swerved to avoid hitting a man who stood in his path. He said that the deceased’s act of suicide amounted to an offence of violence under the 1861 Act so as to bring his own claim within the 2001 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Crime
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.521038