LC, Re Application For Judicial Review [1999] ScotCS 114 (14 May 1999)

LC, Re Application For Judicial Review [1999] ScotCS 114 (14 May 1999)

The Board correctly applied the legal test by considering the nature of the criminal acts in each incident and determining whether they constituted crimes of violence according to the ordinary use of language. The Board did not misdirect itself in law, nor did it fail to provide adequate reasons for its decision.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 114
Parties
Petitioner: L. C.; Respondent: Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Criminal Injuries Compensation, Crime of Violence, Reasons for Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Criminal Injuries Compensation Crime of Violence Reasons for Administrative Decisions

Source-derived case record

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. C.

Petitioner

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indecent exposure can constitute a 'crime of violence' under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990
  2. 2 Whether the Board misdirected itself in law regarding the definition of 'crime of violence'
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Board correctly applied the legal test by considering the nature of the criminal acts in each incident and determining whether they constituted crimes of violence according to the ordinary use of language. The Board did not misdirect itself in law, nor did it fail to provide adequate reasons for its decision.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Sustain the respondents' pleas-in-law
  • Repel the petitioner's pleas-in-law