LAW REPORT: 4 April 1995 Councils not obliged to compensate
D v Director of Public Prosecutions and other appeals Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Leggatt and Mr Justice Buxton) 31 March 1995
Tuesday 04 April 1995
The Divisional Court allowed four appeals by Shropshire and Lancashire County Councils from compensations orders made under section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended.
In each case, the council applied for judicial review of magistrates' or Crown Court orders to pay compensation following findings of guilt recorded against young persons in its care.
James Townend QC and N Alban-Lloyd (County Solicitors) for the councils; John Maxwell (DPP) for the DPP.
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT, giving the court's judgment, said that the approach to compensation in section 55 was in two stages. First, the court must consider whether "the case would best be met by the imposition of a fine or costs or the making of" a compensation order "whether with or without any other punishment". It was at that stage that the court must decide whether the victim had suffered a loss that deserved to be compensated.
If so, the court was obliged, where the offender was under 16, or empowered, where the offender was 16 or 17, to make an order for payment against the parent or guardian, or where section 55(5) applied, the local authority.
The court's exercise of that duty or power was only prevented in cases where it would be unreasonable to make an order for payment, having regard to the circumstances of the case. That very broad test applied equally to a parent or guardian and to a local authority, but its application must necessarily differ according to the circumstances. Where a parent had been responsible for the bringing up of a young person, it might be difficult to show that it would be unreasonable to make an order for payment against a parent, though such cases might arise.
A local authority's position with regard to young persons in its care, or for whom it had provided accommodation, was different from that of a natural parent or a guardian. A local authority might be entrusted with the care of a young person who was already an offender, or of criminal propensity. The steps the local authority could take to restrain such a young person might be limited.
The structure of the Act indicated that the local authority had the same right to assert unreasonableness as did a natural parent. It was entirely appropriate that the local authority should be able to try to demonstrate, just as might a parent, that it had done all that it reasonably could, within the limits of its powers over the young person, to keep the young person from criminal ways.
Where, therefore, the local authority was found to have done everything that it reasonably and properly could to protect the public from the young offender, it would be wholly unreasonable and unjust that it should bear a financial penalty. The parental responsibility that a local authority had for young persons in its care did not carry with it an obligation to answer for the young person's defaults, so long as the authority had properly exercised such powers over the young person as were conferred on it by its parental responsibility.
The approach that it would be troublesome for the victims to pursue civil claims was erroneous. It was irrelevant that the council had the means to pay if it was unreasonable that it should do so.
In the first appeal, the case would be remitted for the magistrates to make a finding as to whether the council had done all that it reasonably could to prevent the offences. In the other appeals, no criticism was made of the way in which the councils carried out their duties, and the compensation orders would be quashed.
Ying Hui Tan, Barrister
Harry Potter actor suffered 'severe flu-like symptoms' on a flight from London to Orlando
First full-length look is finally here
World cities ranked in terms of safety, food security and 'liveability'
"Oink! Oink! Hee hee hee!" First interview with the big-screen star
Biohacking group hopes technology will lead people to think about even more dystopian uses
- 2 The awkward moment Sarah Palin raised $25,000 for Hillary Clinton's election campaign
- 3 Ball pool for adults opens in London
- 4 Amal Clooney gives excellent response to fashion question at European Court of Human Rights
- 5 Baldness could soon be treated using stem cells, scientists hope
Woman falls to her death as she celebrates marriage proposal at the edge of Ibiza cliff
Sex abuse inquiry: 'Victims receive death threats' after MPs release names online
Saudi preacher who 'raped and tortured' his five -year-old daughter to death is released after paying 'blood money'
Teenager brandishing fake gun taken down by police after demanding airtime on Netherlands' NOS TV station
The awkward moment Sarah Palin raised $25,000 for Hillary Clinton's election campaign
9 reasons Greece's experiment with the radical left is doomed to failure
'We would evict Queen from Buckingham Palace and allocate her council house,' say Greens
Have we reached 'peak food'? Shortages loom as global production rates slow
Greece elections: Syriza and EU on collision course after election win for left-wing party
British grandmother Lindsay Sandiford faces execution by firing squad in Indonesia
Liberal Democrat minister defends comments suggesting immigration causes pub closures
£40000 - £60000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is a fantastic opportunity...
£14000 - £17500 per annum: Recruitment Genius: The successful applicant will b...
£41500 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This company is going through a period o...
£10670 - £16640 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This fast growing reinforcing s...