The claimant made a claim as regards a sexual assault committed against him in prison. The Panel refused the claim on the basis that he had consented.
Held: A claim might succeed where the consent was vitiated in such circumstances as would leave the assault a criminal offence. The claimant was vulnerable and had been placed in a cell with a much older man accused of offences against other young men. F had groomed him for the offence. The question of consent should not be approached narrowly, but rather on a jury approach. Should the claimant properly be described as a victim. Submission was not the same as consent. In this case the claimant had the mental capacity to consent, but a simple question as to consent did not allow for his vulnerability. The Panel had not asked the correct questions, and the case was remitted to a different panel.
Judges:
Woolf LCJ, Hale Latham LJJ
Citations:
Times 17-Mar-2003
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Prisons
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180952
