The complainant had suffered repeated acts of sexual abuse as a child including acts of penetration. She sought compensation under the scheme, but was initially refused on the basis that it was not a crime of violence, then later awarded pounds 2,000. Later again, the Panel agreed to make a payment but reduced it because of her convictions, back to the same amount. She complained that the decision was insufficiently detailed to allow analysis. She wanted proper sufficient and intelligible reasons.
Held: The panel had failed to give such reasons in three respects, and the decision was quashed.
Judges:
Mr Justice Hooper
Citations:
[2001] EWHC Admin 720
Links:
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 – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Ex Parte Leatherland; similar QBD 12-Oct-2000
The practice of withholding the reasons for a decision until the day of an appeal which had come to be adopted was unfair and bad administration. The Tribunal should give proper reasons for its decision, together with the gist of any evidence which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.166588
