R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte 1995

FACTS:-

 The Applicant was born in 1958. As a young child she was sexually abused by her father. The assaults took place between the ages of 7 and 14. She made her first complaint to the police in 1989, and alleged abuse not against her father but also two other members of her family, one of whom she later said in interview was her grandfather. However she did not want both her father and her grandfather to be prosecuted at the same time. Her father was convicted of a number of offences of indecent assault in July 1990. In the same year, she made an application to the CICB. Her application was refused because of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1969 which stated:-

 “Where the victim who suffered injuries and the offender who inflicted them were living together at the time as members of the same family no compensation is payable.”

 The claim was also turned down on the grounds that it was outside the normal three year time limit.In 1992 she made allegations against her grandfather (who had not been living with her at the time of the abuse). The police refused to take these forward because of the delay. The Applicant made a new application to the CICB and this application was also refused because of the delay. She sought judicial review of the CICB’s decision.

HELD:-

Judge J considered the facts of the case. Delay was a common feature of many cases in which sexual abuse took place in the family. However in cases where sexual abuse had been established before a court, as in the present case it was established against the father, it would not in his judgment normally be reasonable for excessive attention to be paid to the delay which might have elapsed before the victim was able to bring herself to report the crime. However a much more difficult question arose where there had been no successful proceedings to conviction. This made it difficult to carry out a fair and balanced investigation. The CICB’s discretion was very wide indeed.

Judge J considered the submissions of the Applicant’s counsel. However there was nothing to suggest that the chairman of the CICB had not taken into account all the circumstances of the case. He was entitled to come to this conclusion.