Law Report: Nil compensation for criminal injury quashed: Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Gambles. Queen's Bench Division (Mr Justice Sedley), 3 December 1993
Mr Justice Sedley quashed the board's refusal to award compensation to the applicant, Andrew Wayne Gambles. The applicant had been drinking with friends, one of whom was hit. He confronted the aggressor and suffered serious lacerations on the face from a broken beer glass. The board considered the appropriateness of a reduced award but found that the applicant had evinced a willingness to engage in violence which culminated in the assault on him. It disallowed his application for compensation under paragraph 6(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Scheme 1979, which provides that the board may withdraw or reduce compensation if it considers that, having regard to the conduct of the applicant before, during or after the events, it is inappropriate that a full award, or any award at all, be granted.
Richard Drabble (Arthur Smith & Broadie-Griffith, Wigan) for the applicant; Michael Kent (Treasury Solicitor) for the board.
MR JUSTICE SEDLEY said that all the possible levels of award lay within the range of decision compatible with the finding that the applicant was ready to fight in the material circumstances.
It was for the board to establish a rational and proportionate nexus between the conduct of the applicant before and during that could reduce or extinguish the award to which he would otherwise be entitled.
The board, in such a case as this, had to proceed in three stages: (a) Did the applicant's conduct make a full award inappropriate? (b) If so, to what extent did the applicant's conduct impact on the appropriateness of an award? (c) What award if any should the applicant consequently receive?
The board's reasoning went from (a) to (c), omitting (b) entirely. It was not right for the court to supply the want by assuming the existence of the very thing that reasons were there to demonstrate, namely that the conclusion had been reached by an appropriate process of reasoning from the facts. There was a defect in the board's reasoning such that its decision could not stand.
- 1 Nigel Farage: Me vs Russell Brand on Question Time – he's got the chest hair but where are his ideas?
- 2 Harry Potter fans can apply to the Hogwarts-inspired College of Wizardry
- 3 Jessica Chambers: 19-year-old woman 'doused with lighter fluid and burned alive' in the US
- 4 Russell Brand calls Nigel Farage 'poundshop Enoch Powell' in BBC Question Time debate
- 5 Orange Wednesdays are no more
Weather bomb in pictures: Storms cuts power for tens of thousands – and snow is on the way
Jessica Chambers: 19-year-old woman 'doused with lighter fluid and burned alive' in the US
Russell Brand calls Nigel Farage 'poundshop Enoch Powell' in BBC Question Time debate
Russell Brand was rendered speechless on Question Time by this man
Fury at Airbus after it hints the super-jumbo may be mothballed
Disgruntled RBS worker writes hilarious open letter to Russell Brand after anti-capitalist publicity stunt leaves him hungry
Nigel Farage defends Kerry Smith 'ch***y' comment: 'If you are going for a Chinese, what do you say you’re going for?'
Nigel Farage's approval rating hits 'record low' as popularity suffers in wake of Ukip sex scandal
Pakistan school attack live: Taliban kill at least 132 children in 'horrifying' massacre
Sony hack: Angelina Jolie branded 'seriously out of her mind' in further embarrassing leaked email saga
Panic Saturday: 13 million Britons spend £1.2bn – while 13 million others across the country live in poverty unable to afford food
£20000 - £25000 per annum + OTE £35K: SThree: We consistently strive to be the...
£20000 - £25000 per annum + OTE £35000: SThree: SThree are a global FTSE 250 b...
£18000 - £23000 per annum + £40K OTE: SThree: Recruitment is a sales role and ...
£18000 - £23000 per annum + OTE £40000: SThree: SThree are a global FTSE 250 b...