Re G (A Ward)(Criminal Injuries Compensation)1993

FACTS:-

The Applicant was born in 1983 and her parents’ relationship broke down in 1984. In 1986 the father was suspected of sexually abusing his daughter and he issued wardship proceedings. The father was exonerated by the court who ordered that the girl should remain a ward of court, and that the mother should have care and control, and that contact with the father should be by way of cards and presents until the girl was 7. An adverse effect was observed in the girl when she received cards from her father. A consultant child psychologist said that the girl had been subjected to sexual abuse. The Official Solicitor applied (under Practice Direction (Ward: Criminal Injury) [1988] 1 FLR 183) for permission to make a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and the judge applying Re G (A Ward)(Criminal Injuries: Compensation) [1991 1 FLR 89. This case acted as a filter on all such claims, and claims would not be allowed where there was no hope of success.

The father appealed on the ground that 1) the judgment of the family court operated as an issue estoppel, or alternative that the matters were res iudicata 2) the application was a collateral attack on the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction 3) it was wrong for the judge hearing the application for leave to take into account the reports of the child psychiatrist.

HELD:-

Purchas LJ said that the CICB was appointed under the royal prerogative to make an ex gratia payment to those who were the victims of crime. An application was not by its nature, the equivalent of inter partes litigation in which the principle of res iudicata or issue estoppel applied. The CICB were not bound by the normal rules of evidence, and could make enquiries on their own initiative. They might also consult extraneous sources of information as in their wisdom they saw fit. Therefore an application to the CICB could not be an abuse of the process of the court. The courts were only concerned as the guardians of the ward and therefore were only concerned as to whether the application was in the best interests of the ward.

Stocker LJ and Sir Christopher Slade agreed