Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland Decisions

"We were not impressed with the reasons put forward for the delay in reporting. While a sympathetic view can be taken on account of the applicant's youth he did admit in evidence that he spoke to his mother later on the morning of the assault and that she advised him to report the matter to the police immediately. The fact of having consumed alcohol as a minor as a reason for not reporting at the time does not commend itself to the Panel and we note that this fact was indeed fully disclosed when the report was made. We were not convinced by the explanation that the applicant was trying to establish the identity of his assailants. His evidence was somewhat vague on this point and it appears that he made inquiries from people who had been out socialising at the time if they had any information which could assist him. If, indeed, this is the case it did not prevent the applicant from reporting the matter promptly with whatever information was available at the time and providing the police with additional information if his inquiries bore fruit thereafter.

6. The submission that the police investigation was not prejudiced does not commend itself to the panel. We are of the view that failure to inform the police promptly can make further inquiries very difficult to pursue. The prompt report enables the facts of an incident and the bona fides of a claim to be investigated at the earliest opportunity. Prompt reporting of incidents to the authorities has long been a feature of criminal injuries compensation codes. In this particular appellant's case one cannot say that a prompt report would not in some way have assisted the police with their inquiries.

7. Accordingly we are satisfied that the appellant failed to take, without delay all reasonable steps to inform the police of the circumstances giving rise to the injuries. The appellant's reasons for the delay in reporting are unsatisfactory in our view and while we may have considered exercising our discretion to reduce an award if for example the report had been made the next day, we do not regard it appropriate to do so given the lapse of 4 days."

"The Secretary of State may withhold or reduce an award where he considers that:

(a) The applicant failed to take, without delay, all reasonable steps to inform the police or other body or person considered by the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of the circumstances giving rise to the injury."

Paragraphs 8.3 to 8.8 of the Guide issued by the Agency under the Scheme state that the Agency attaches great importance to the duty of a victim of crime to inform the police of the circumstances without delay and to corroborate with their inquiries and any subsequent prosecution. Reporting is the main safeguard against fraud and in the absence of reasonable explanation for not reporting to the police an applicant should assume that an application for compensation will be rejected. Failure to report is unlikely to be excused on the grounds of fear of reprisals or non recognition of the assailants or seeing no point in reporting. Reporting can help the police prevent further offences against others. The incident should be reported personally and if prevented by injury from doing so an applicant has a duty to contact the police as soon as possible. It is not sufficient to assume that someone else will report. Reports by friends, relatives or workmates will not be sufficient without good reason for the applicant not reporting to the police as well. All relevant circumstances must be reported and deliberately omitting any important information or misleading police would normally lead to an application being rejected. Reports should be made at the earliest possible opportunity as the absence of a prompt report can make further inquiries difficult. The Guide makes clear that a sympathetic view will be taken where the delay in reporting the incident to police is clearly attributable to youth, old age, physical or mental incapacity or psychological effects of the crime or the applicant was unaware that the injury was due to a crime of violence. A late report made just to make a claim for compensation is likely to result in the application being rejected.

"Crimes of violence must be reported to the police. We will not normally accept reports made, for example, to employers, trade union officials or social workers as sufficient. Exceptions may be made, however, in the case of injuries sustained, for example, in mental hospitals and prisons where prompt report to the appropriate person in authority represents a willingness that the matter should be formally investigated. The "appropriate authority" in the case of a child will often be the child's parents, whose failure to inform the police will not prevent the child's claim from proceeding if it would have been unreasonable to expect the child to take the matter any further. It should, however, be borne in mind that to consider any application we need to be able to investigate and substantiate any incident giving rise to a claim for compensation. Therefore, if an incident involving a child is not reported by a parent/guardian to someone in authority it is unlikely that the application will succeed. There may be cases involving children where it might not necessarily be appropriate to involve the police. Relatively minor incidents at school are examples of this. It might be in the best interests of the child in such cases for disciplinary action to be taken within the school and, in that type of case, we would accept a report to the school authorities as satisfactory."

"23. As I have noted at paragraph 11 above, the appellant did not contend in his appeal form that the report to his mother constituted a report to an appropriate person for the purposes of paragraph 14(a) of the scheme. Nor, in my recollection was this case made by the appellant or his representative at the hearing. The notes of each panel member, which record no such submission or contention, support my recollection.

24. In any event, we were aware, from the terms of the Scheme and the Guide, each of which were before us, that a report to a person other than the police may be sufficient to satisfy the scheme's reporting requirements. Although we were also aware that the applicant had reported the assault to his mother later on the Saturday (see paragraph 5 of the written statement of reasons), we did not consider this to be a sufficient report.

25. In this regard, the following considerations appear to me to be relevant:

(i) The appellant was not a young child at the time of the assault but was a 17year old.

(ii) The appellant considered himself old enough to consume alcohol and, when the report to police was eventually made, felt confident enough to report the matter to police himself rather than requesting his mother to do so.

(iii) When the appellant told his mother about the assault she advised him to report the matter to the police immediately. The appellant chose not to take this advice.

(iv) The appellant was aware that his mother, despite her advice, had not reported the incident to police herself."

"Paragraph 14(a) of the Scheme requires the Agency to take account of whether, without delay, all reasonable steps were taken to inform the police or other appropriate authority of the incident."

The Panel was clearly aware that the issue was whether there had been a compliance with paragraph 14(a). The Panel was aware that in appropriate circumstances a report to someone other than the police might satisfy the requirements of the paragraph. Paragraph 3 of the written reasons of the Panel also make this clear.

"It seems to me that to make a case that a report to someone other than the police ought to be regarded as the giving of information to an appropriate authority, more is needed than the mere fact that the other person had been told of the crimes of violence. Circumstances making that other person in appropriate authority also required to be invoked. It seems to me to be clear that at the time when the petitioner's application was before the respondent, no case was put forward to the effect that the respondent ought to regard her reporting to CM as the giving of information to an appropriate authority. In those circumstances the respondents were in my view entitled to confine their attention to the case actually advanced, namely that there was reporting to the police or, if there was not, that there was good reason for failure to report to the police."

"The appellant had delayed even further however despite being advised by his mother to contact police on the Saturday and, as appears from paragraph 6 of our written statement of reasons we were not persuaded to make an award by virtue of the appellant's submission that the police investigation was not prejudiced by the late reporting. It is impossible to say with certainty that the late report did not prejudice the investigation. In any event the Scheme requires prompt reporting independent of any question or prejudice."

Counsel argued that the Panel had effectively set an impossibly high threshold for the appellant to overcome, requiring him to prove with certainty that a late report did not prejudice the investigation.