Tait, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2009] EWHC 767 (Admin) (07 April 2009)

Tait, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2009] EWHC 767 (Admin) (07 April 2009)

The Panel erred in law by treating motive as determinative and failing to consider whether the driver intended to injure the Claimant. On the facts found, the driver’s deliberate ramming of the police car with force sufficient to disable it made injury to its occupants objectively inevitable, and the Panel should have inferred intention to injure. Paragraph 11 is satisfied where the driver intended the natural and probable consequences of his act, even if his motive was escape.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 767 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mark Tait; Defendant: Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decision of the Panel quashed; matter remitted for determination of compensation amount.
Legal Topics
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, Eligibility for Compensation, Interpretation of 'deliberately to Inflict Injury'
Administrative Law Compensation Law Criminal Law Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme Eligibility for Compensation Interpretation of 'deliberately to Inflict Injury'

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Tait

Claimant

Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle was used so as deliberately to inflict or attempt to inflict injury under paragraph 11 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001
  2. 2 Whether motive or intention is determinative for eligibility under paragraph 11

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel erred in law by treating motive as determinative and failing to consider whether the driver intended to injure the Claimant. On the facts found, the driver’s deliberate ramming of the police car with force sufficient to disable it made injury to its occupants objectively inevitable, and the Panel should have inferred intention to injure. Paragraph 11 is satisfied where the driver intended the natural and probable consequences of his act, even if his motive was escape.

Court Disposition

Decision of the Panel quashed; matter remitted for determination of compensation amount.

Orders

  • Decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel dated 16 June 2006 quashed.
  • Claimant's appeal remitted to the First Tier Tribunal for assessment of compensation.