M, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Panel

Eligibility under the former Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme depended on the ordinary meaning of living together as members of the same family. The expression did not require a blood or legal relationship. It involved a mixed question of fact and law, assessed in the legal context that created the relationship. A foster child placed with carers under statutory boarding-out arrangements was intended to live in their home as a member of their family. That was sufficient, even though the child retained his original family and the foster carers lacked ultimate authority over major decisions. The exclusion was therefore applicable where the victim and offender lived together in that family context.

The claimant suffered serious injuries while placed with foster parents by a local authority. His compensation claim under the 1969 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was ultimately rejected on eligibility grounds under paragraph 7, which excluded compensation where victim and offender were living together as members of the same family.

The claimant argued that foster placement created two households or families, and that the absence of blood, adoption or other legal relationship prevented application of the exclusion. The central issue was whether the claimant was living with the foster parents as a member of the same family within paragraph 7.

1. Application dismissed on the eligibility issue. The Appeal Panel had correctly concluded that paragraph 7 of the 1969 scheme applied. Its conclusion was not irrational and was, in the court’s view, the only proper conclusion on the facts.
2. The phrase living together as members of the same family had to receive its ordinary, straightforward meaning. The authorities, including R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Staten [1972] 1 All ER 1034, supported treating the question principally as one of fact, assessed within the relevant legal context.
3. The legal context was supplied by Part II of the Children Act 1948 and the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955. The claimant had been placed with the foster parents so that he would live in their dwelling as a member of their family. The arrangement required ordinary family care, consideration, time and attention.
4. The claimant did not acquire two families. He remained a member of his original family, but he also lived with the foster parents as a member of their family for the purpose of paragraph 7. Blood relationship, adoption and control over major decisions were not necessary requirements.
5. The statutory scheme also supported a restrained approach to domestic situations, where investigating the facts could be difficult and compensation might benefit the offender. The court adjourned the separate Human Rights Act issue pending the outcome of a similar Scottish case and gave directions for any subsequent amended grounds and response.

The judgment describes an appeal panel decision dated 14 July 2003, which determined the claimant’s eligibility against him. The Administrative Court upheld that conclusion on the domestic-law issue and adjourned the separate compatibility issue.