High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions

"5. 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 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 enquiries 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 the enquiries bore fruit thereafter.

6. The submission that the police investigation was not prejudiced does not comment itself to the panel. We are of the view that failure to inform the police promptly can make further enquiries 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 enquiries."

(a) The decision of 7 December 2005 was unreasonable in that in applying paragraph 14(a) of the Scheme to the applicant's case the Panel assumed that the only valid reporting by the then minor applicant of the criminal injury incident could be to police and in so doing –

(i) The Panel did not direct themselves in terms of paragraph 8.9 of the Guide which stipulates that in the case of a minor the minor's parents might be an "appropriate authority" for reporting such incidents.

(ii) Alternatively the Panel failed to consider whether the applicant's mother should be so considered an "appropriate authority" within the terms of paragraph 8.9 of the Guide.

(iii) In so doing the Panel failed to ask themselves a relevant question, as would be required by paragraph 8.9 of the Guide, as to whether the fact of the report to the applicant's mother, and the fact of the subsequent report to the police, which allowed the Compensation Agency to investigate and substantiate the claim, was such that a full award should be made on that basis.

(iv) Or alternatively in so doing the Panel failed to ask themselves the relevant question, as would be required by paragraph 8.9 of the Guide, as to whether the fact of the report to the applicant's mother, and the fact of the subsequent report to the police, which allowed the Compensation Agency to investigate and substantiate the claim, was such that a reduced award as opposed to a nil award should be made on that basis.

(v) In so doing the Panel failed to give the appeal the "sympathetic view" as might be required by paragraphs 8.7 and 8.9 of the Guide.

(b) The decision of 7 December 2005 was unreasonable in that, in stating that in the circumstances had a late report been made by the applicant to the police on 24 November 2002 they would have allowed a reduced award, but that a nil award was being made as the incident was not reported until 27 November 2002, the Panel acted unreasonably in that –

(i) The aims and objectives of the Guide, as illustrated by paragraphs 8.3-8.9 of the Guide, insofar as they relate to non-reporting and late reporting of criminal incidents to police indicate that the reporting provisions are designed to prevent fraud, prevent persons making reports simply to facilitate a compensation claim and assist police in investigating incidents and identify offenders.

(ii) No reliance was placed by the Panel on the aims and objectives of the reporting provisions in the applicant's case insofar as they were designed to prevent fraud or prevent reports simply to facilitate a compensation claim.

(iii) Any reasonable tribunal would have reasoned that in terms of the aims and objectives of the reporting provisions any prejudice to be suffered to a potential police investigation in the circumstances of the applicant's particular case was fully occasioned by 24 November 2002 ie. the day following the alleged incident and that no further or no additional prejudice would be caused to the potential police investigation by a further delay after such initial delay.

(iv) The Panel's professed approach to the question of delay was not rationally connected to the aims or objectives of the Scheme and was not rationally connected to any additional prejudice to the police investigation occasioned by the further additional delay.

(v) The complete withholding of an award rather than the grant of a reduced award was in the circumstances punitive of the delay per se.

(vi) The approach was not consistent with the requirement to take a sympathetic view of the applicant as a minor victim.

(c) Alternatively the impugned decision was unreasonable in that the Panel failed to give any or adequate reasons why a reduced award would have been appropriate if a report had been made to police on 24 November 2002 but a nil award was appropriate in the circumstances where no report to police was made until 27 November 2002.

Paragraph 14 provides –

"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."

Paragraph 20 provides:

"It will be for the applicant to make out his case including, where appropriate –

(a) making out his case for a waiver of the time limit in the proceedings paragraph (the making of the application for compensation under the Scheme), and

(b) satisfying the Secretary of State that an award should not be reconsidered, withheld or reduced under any provision of the Scheme."

"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 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."(Italics added)

Appropriate authority.

"It seems to me to be clear that, if there had been a live issue before the respondents as to whether what the petitioner told CM amounted to the giving of information to an appropriate authority, it would have amounted to a misdirection on the respondent's part for them to have failed to address that issue and confine their attention to the consequences of the absence of a report to the police. The question which requires to be determined, it seems to me, is whether the fact that there was before the respondents unchallenged evidence that the petitioner had told CM about WW's violence is per se sufficient to have required the respondents to address the "appropriate authority" issues. In my view it was not. It seems to me that to make a case that a report to someone other than the police ought to be regarding 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 an appropriate authority also require 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 respondents 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 here was good reason for failure to report to the police. I am therefore of opinion that, in the circumstances, the fact that the respondents did not address whether CM was an appropriate authority did not amount to a misdirection on their part as to the proper scope of paragraph 6(a)."

Reducing or withholding an award.

[18] The applicant's alternative ground of complaint concerns the Panel's suggestion that a reduced award might have been made for a late report on 24 November but that a nil award would be made because of the late report on 27 November. The Panel's written reasons conclude at paragraph 7 as follows:

"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."