Flinton, R v

A compensation order is part of sentence. Where an offender is sentenced on an agreed basis of plea, the order must be assessed on that basis.

Under section 130(4) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the court may award an appropriate sum, but it should not exceed the civil value of the injury. The statutory discretion also permits a reduction where the victim’s unlawful conduct contributed to the assault. The court must balance that contribution against the offender’s disproportionate response.

The appellant pleaded guilty at York Crown Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Ian Grant and common assault against Anita Cooper. He received a suspended sentence with unpaid work and was ordered to pay compensation of £1,500 to Grant and £500 to Cooper.

Only the award to Grant was challenged. The appellant accepted his ability to pay but contended that the award exceeded the proper civil value of Grant’s injuries and should be reduced because Grant had initiated the incident by an unprovoked punch. The central issue was the proper assessment of compensation under section 130(4) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Decision

1. The court allowed the appeal. It reduced the compensation payable to Grant from £1,500 to £750 and ordered the appellant to pay £380 prosecution costs incurred below.

2. A compensation order forms part of the sentence. As there had been no Newton hearing, it had to be assessed on the agreed basis of the appellant’s plea. Under section 130(4) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, compensation should not exceed the sum that a civil court would award. On a full-liability basis, the proper award for Grant’s injuries was £1,000. There was no evidential basis for any award for wage loss.

3. The statutory phrase allowing such compensation as the court considers appropriate is broad enough to permit a reduction for the victim’s unlawful conduct where it contributed to the assault. The differing civil decisions in Lane v Holloway [1968] 1 QB 379 and Murphy v Culhane [1977] QB 94 did not resolve that statutory issue. Nor did the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme provide more than limited assistance, because its awards are funded by the taxpayer rather than the assailant.

4. Grant’s unprovoked assault caused the incident to occur, but it did not justify the kicking he received. Justice required a one-quarter reduction from the full-liability figure. The consequential costs order did not make the overall impact of sentence more severe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). By this judgment, [2007] EWCA Crim 2322, the court allowed the appeal against the £1,500 compensation order in favour of Grant, reduced it to £750, and ordered prosecution costs of £380.

• Crown Court at York. On 12 March 2007 the appellant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault. On 13 April 2007 he received a nine-month sentence suspended for two years, a 200-hour unpaid-work requirement, and compensation orders totalling £2,000.