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

A compensation panel may withhold or reduce an award because an applicant’s character makes an award inappropriate. Its discretion is broad, but it must be exercised rationally and on adequate findings. Judicial review is available where the panel misconstrues its mandate or reaches a plainly wrong decision. A court should consider all relevant circumstances, including the seriousness and extent of the applicant’s offending, the reliability of other adverse evidence, and the consequences of denying compensation. Guidelines are not binding, but a stark departure from them may require explanation. A complete denial of compensation requires particularly compelling reasoning.

The claimant was the victim of kidnapping and assault and had initially been awarded compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Before the award was finalised, he pleaded guilty to benefit fraud and evidence emerged concerning a mortgage application which the Panel regarded as false. Relying on paragraph 13(e) of the Scheme, the Panel refused any award, although it did not require repayment of an interim payment.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the Panel’s decision was irrational and that it had inadequately explained its departure from the Authority’s reduction guidelines. The central issue was whether the Panel had misconstrued its mandate or reached a plainly wrong conclusion.

1. Outcome. The Panel’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration. The claimant was awarded his costs, subject to detailed assessment. Permission to appeal was refused.
2. Paragraph 13(e) of the Scheme confers a broad discretion to withhold or reduce compensation where the applicant’s character, as shown by convictions or other evidence, makes a full or any award inappropriate. Applying R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thompstone [1984] 1 WLR 1234, the court could intervene if the Panel misconstrued its mandate or its decision was plainly wrong.
3. The Panel was entitled to consider the claimant’s benefit fraud, the mortgage application, the claimant’s evidence, and the possibility that the fraud extended over a substantial period. The seriousness of the original victimisation was also relevant. The issue was not a simple balancing exercise between the original offence and the claimant’s later conduct.
4. Nevertheless, the findings concerning the mortgage application were unclear, and the benefit fraud was not extensive in monetary terms. In the circumstances, the complete denial of compensation was clearly over the top and irrational. The reasons did not justify the stark departure from the Authority’s usual guideline outcome, under which the conditional discharge would normally have attracted no reduction.
5. The court declined to determine the appropriate reduction. A new Panel might receive further evidence and give more satisfactory reasons, so the matter had to be remitted for reconsideration.

The judgment itself records that the claimant obtained permission from a single judge to bring judicial review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel’s decision dated 2 December 2004. The Administrative Court allowed the claim, quashed the Panel’s decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.