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

Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001, conduct may justify withholding compensation altogether where it is culpable and calculated to provoke or create an occasion for violence. The decision-maker must distinguish between foolish conduct and conduct sufficiently blameworthy to engage the scheme’s exclusion. A refusal of an award is lawful where the findings establish deliberate conduct closely connected with the violence, even though the victim suffered consequences more serious than anticipated. Reasons are adequate if they identify the principal issues, the conclusion reached and the basis for that conclusion. The court will intervene on rationality grounds only where the decision-maker misconstrued its mandate or reached a plainly wrong conclusion.

The widow and children of a man fatally stabbed after a fight applied for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority rejected the claim under paragraph 13(d), the reviewing officer upheld that conclusion, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel rejected the appeal after an oral hearing.

The claimants sought judicial review on the grounds that the Panel gave inadequate reasons for withholding any award, rather than merely reducing one, and that its decision was irrational. The central issues were whether the Panel had properly applied the conduct provision and whether its findings justified a complete refusal of compensation.

1. The claim was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused.
2. Applying R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Cook (1 WLR 1037), the reasons were sufficient. The Panel identified the principal issues, stated its conclusion and explained why the deceased’s conduct justified refusing compensation.
3. The Panel found that, after a serious argument, the deceased remained outside the premises, summoned reinforcements to continue the argument or fight, and could foresee that those attending might be armed. Those findings established deliberate and culpable conduct calculated to provoke violence or create an occasion for it.
4. The conduct provision was not confined to the precise example in the Authority’s guidance concerning voluntarily joining a fight. It extended to conduct closely analogous to that example and sufficiently blameworthy to justify withholding the whole award.
5. Applying R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Thompstone ([1984] 1 WLR 1234), the Panel’s decision could be challenged only if it had misconstrued its mandate or was plainly wrong. It had not misconstrued the scheme, and its conclusion was not plainly wrong. The fact that the deceased suffered more serious consequences than he may have expected did not make refusal of compensation perverse.

The judgment itself records the Authority’s original refusal, the reviewing officer’s decision and the Appeal Panel’s decision. The High Court dismissed the judicial review claim and refused permission to appeal.