Tait, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

Tait, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

The Panel erred in law by treating the driver’s motive to escape as determinative and failing to consider whether the driver intended to injure the Claimant as a natural and probable consequence of ramming the police car. On the facts found, the only reasonable inference is that the driver intended to injure the Claimant, satisfying paragraph 11 of the Scheme.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Tait; Defendant: Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; Panel's decision quashed; matter remitted for assessment of compensation.
Legal Topics
Criminal Injuries Compensation, Interpretation of Compensation Scheme, Intention Vs Motive in Criminal Law
Administrative Law Compensation Law Criminal Injuries Compensation Interpretation of Compensation Scheme Intention Vs Motive in Criminal Law

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Tait

Claimant

Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle was used so as deliberately to inflict or attempt to inflict injury on any person under paragraph 11 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001
  2. 2 Whether the Panel erred in law by focusing on the motive rather than the intention of the driver

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel erred in law by treating the driver’s motive to escape as determinative and failing to consider whether the driver intended to injure the Claimant as a natural and probable consequence of ramming the police car. On the facts found, the only reasonable inference is that the driver intended to injure the Claimant, satisfying paragraph 11 of the Scheme.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Panel's decision quashed; matter remitted for assessment of compensation.

Orders

  • The decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel is quashed.
  • The Claimant’s appeal is remitted to the First Tier Tribunal for determination of the amount of compensation payable.