MA v Decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2017] ScotCS CSIH_46 (14 July 2017)

MA v Decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2017] ScotCS CSIH_46 (14 July 2017)

The Court held that the applicant's claim for criminal injuries compensation constituted a 'possession' for the purposes of A1P1, and that the 'same roof rule' was discriminatory under Article 14. However, the discrimination was objectively and reasonably justified by the legitimate aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the compensation scheme, managing administrative burden, and avoiding exposure to uncertain historical claims. The means employed were proportionate, and the policy decision was not manifestly without reasonable foundation. The reclaiming motion was refused.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_46
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: MA; Respondent: Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Petition and Reclaiming Motion (judicial Review) / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session, Scotland)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Discrimination Under ECHR Article 14, Right to Property Under A1 P1, Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, Justification for Discriminatory Treatment, Socio Economic Policy and Resource Allocation
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Compensation Law Discrimination Under ECHR Article 14 Right to Property Under A1 P1 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme Justification for Discriminatory Treatment Socio Economic Policy and Resource Allocation

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition and Reclaiming Motion (judicial Review) / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session, Scotland)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for criminal injuries compensation constitutes a 'possession' under A1P1 of the ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the 'same roof rule' in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008 is discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether any discrimination is objectively and reasonably justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicant's claim for criminal injuries compensation constituted a 'possession' for the purposes of A1P1, and that the 'same roof rule' was discriminatory under Article 14. However, the discrimination was objectively and reasonably justified by the legitimate aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the compensation scheme, managing administrative burden, and avoiding exposure to uncertain historical claims. The means employed were proportionate, and the policy decision was not manifestly without reasonable foundation. The reclaiming motion was refused.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • The reclaiming motion by the petitioner is refused.
  • The cross-appeal by the respondent is refused.