R (On the Application of Tait) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2009]
- Reported: [2009] EWHC 767 (Admin)
- Year: 2009
- Court: High Court
FACTS:-
This was an application for judicial review of a decision by the Defendant taken on 16 June 2006 that the Claimant was not entitled to an award of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme because the vehicle which caused his injuries had not been “used so as deliberately to inflict, or attempt to inflict injury on any person.” as required by paragraph 11 of the Scheme. The issue raised by this application is whether a finding that a vehicle is deliberately used to ram a police car with the primary motive of disabling it so as to enable the rammer to make good his escape is incompatible with a finding that the vehicle was used so as deliberately to inflict or attempt to inflict injury on the policemen who were inside the police car.
The Claimant was a police officer. On 4 March 2003 he was injured when he was engaged in the pursuit of a stolen car. He was a passenger in a police car which was rammed twice by the driver of the stolen car. Both the Claimant and the driver of the police car sustained whiplash injuries.
On 6 May 2003 the Claimant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for compensation. His application was rejected on the ground that his injuries were not sufficiently serious to qualify under paragraph 25 of the Scheme for compensation equal at least to the minimum award under the Scheme in accordance with paragraph 26 thereof. The Claimant applied for a review, but that application was rejected on the same ground. He then appealed to the Defendant. In a note of written reasons for the dismissal of the Claimant’s appeal dated 13 September 2006, the chairman of the Defendant recorded that the day before the oral hearing of the appeal the three members of the Defendant panel notified the Claimant and his solicitors that although the hearing had been listed for the assessment of compensation the three members thought that on the papers there was an eligibility issue. He explained that the Panel considered that the claim arose out of a car chase and that they were concerned that the provisions of paragraph 11 of the Scheme needed to be explored. As a result at the hearing the Panel did not address the ground on which the Claimant had appealed, namely whether his injuries were sufficiently serious to qualify for compensation under paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Scheme. Instead the hearing was confined to a prior question, which had not been raised in front of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and which had formed no part of the reason for the Claimant’s claim having been rejected at that level.
HELD:-
The police officer was entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 for injuries sustained while he was in a police car that was rammed by a stolen car whose driver was trying to escape, and although the latter’s motive was only to disable the police car so as to allow his escape, it followed that he intended to cause injury to the occupants. Accordingly, the police officer was eligible under para.11 of the Scheme.
Mr Justice Stalden found that the panel erred in law in concluding that the Volvo was not being used so as deliberately to inflict injury on the Claimant. The Panel found as a fact that the motive of the Volvo driver was to damage and disable the police car to enable the occupants of the Volvo to make good their escape.
Mr Justice Stalden concluded in his judgment that the correct course was for the decision of the Panel, that the Claimant was not entitled to an award because of paragraph 11 of the Scheme to be quashed and for an order to be made remitting the Claimant’s appeal for determination of the amount of compensation payable to him.
Related posts:
