CD, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel [2004] EWHC 1674 (Admin) (12 July 2004)

CD, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel [2004] EWHC 1674 (Admin) (12 July 2004)

The panel's decision in CD's case was lawful as it properly considered the issue of real consent, vulnerability, and responsibility, and was entitled to conclude that CD was not a victim of a crime of violence. In JM's case, the panel failed to properly consider vulnerability, imbalance in the relationship, and the reality of consent, and its reasoning was insufficient to justify refusal of compensation; thus, the decision must be quashed.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1674 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: CD; Claimant: JM; Defendant: Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment in Administrative Court
Outcome
CD's application dismissed; JM's application allowed; panel's decision in JM's case quashed.
Legal Topics
Criminal Injuries Compensation, Consent in Sexual Offences, Judicial Review, Vulnerability of Victims, Panel Reasoning and Public Law Grounds
Administrative Law Criminal Law Compensation Law Criminal Injuries Compensation Consent in Sexual Offences Judicial Review Vulnerability of Victims Panel Reasoning and Public Law Grounds

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CD

Claimant

JM

Claimant

Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment in Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel erred in law in refusing compensation to CD and JM on the basis that they were not victims of a 'crime of violence' under the Scheme, particularly in relation to the issue of real consent and vulnerability.

Ratio Decidendi

The panel's decision in CD's case was lawful as it properly considered the issue of real consent, vulnerability, and responsibility, and was entitled to conclude that CD was not a victim of a crime of violence. In JM's case, the panel failed to properly consider vulnerability, imbalance in the relationship, and the reality of consent, and its reasoning was insufficient to justify refusal of compensation; thus, the decision must be quashed.

Court Disposition

CD's application dismissed; JM's application allowed; panel's decision in JM's case quashed.

Orders

  • CD's claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • JM's claim for judicial review is allowed; the panel's decision refusing compensation to JM is quashed.