R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Dickenson 1995

FACTS:-

The Applicant was sexually abused by her brother in law between 1976 and 1988. He was convicted of the abuse in 1992 and in 1993 she made an application for compensation to the CICB, but the Board refused to waive the three time limit. The Applicant complained that this was irrational since there had been a conviction. There was also a finding by the CICB that the Applicant had been living with her assailant at the time of his first conviction in 1976. This would have been caught by the “same roof rule” if the abuser and victim were living together prior to the 1^st October 1979. The Applicant said that this decision was based on a misconception of the material before the CICB.

The Applicant applied for judicial review.

HELD:-

Lord Justice Schiemann held that:-

1)    It was not irrational to cite difficulties of proof arising from delay when rejecting the application.

2)    Some of the evidence before the Board indicated that the Applicant had consented to intercourse and buggery. Not all offences of intercourse or buggery would amount to a crime of violence.

3)    These events took place more than 20 years ago, and the problem of establishing lack of consent would be at their strongest there.

4)    It was for the Applicant to place all available material before the CICB. She had sought to place late psychiatric evidence before them after the CICB had reached its decision.

5)    The Board’s decision was based on the evidence put forward by the Applicant. It was not suggested that the decision was perverse.

Therefore the CICB’s decision would stand.