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

For the vehicle-use exception in paragraph 11 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001, the driver’s motive is not determinative. A vehicle may be used deliberately to inflict injury even where the driver’s primary purpose is to disable another vehicle and escape. The decision-maker must separately assess the driver’s subjective state of mind and whether the vehicle was used so as deliberately to inflict, or attempt to inflict, injury. Where a vehicle is deliberately used as a battering ram to disable a car, injury to its occupants may be the natural and probable, or almost inevitable, consequence. In the absence of contrary evidence, that consequence may support an inference that the driver foresaw and intended the injury.

The claimant, a police officer, was injured when a stolen car twice rammed the police car during a pursuit. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel rejected his claim under paragraph 11 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001, finding that the stolen car was used to damage and disable the police car so that its occupants could escape, rather than to injure the officers.

The claimant sought judicial review. The central issue was whether a finding that injury was not the driver’s motive was incompatible with a finding that the driver nevertheless intended to injure the occupants.

1. The claim succeeded. The Panel’s decision was quashed and the appeal was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for determination of the amount of compensation.
2. Under paragraphs 8(c) and 11 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001, an injury arising during the attempted apprehension of an offender is generally a criminal injury, but an injury attributable to vehicle use is excluded unless the vehicle was used so as deliberately to inflict, or attempt to inflict, injury.
3. The Panel treated its finding about the driver’s motive—to disable the police car and escape—as conclusive. That was an error of law. Motive and intention are distinct. The relevant questions were the driver’s subjective state of mind and whether the vehicle was used deliberately to inflict or attempt to inflict injury.
4. A deliberate use of a vehicle as a battering ram to make another car undrivable makes injury to its occupants very likely, if not almost inevitable. Although subjective foresight is required, it may be inferred on the balance of probabilities from the natural and probable consequences of the conduct. In the absence of contrary evidence, the driver could be found to have foreseen and intended injury notwithstanding that escape was his primary motive.
5. Waide, Re Judicial Review [2008] NICA 1 did not decide the distinction between motive and intention. Its discussion concerned a driver who intended to veer away and frighten rather than hit the victim. The present case was materially different because the driver intended to ram the police car and did not intend to veer away.
6. The reasoning in Charlton v Fisher [2002] QB 578 supported treating deliberate use of a car as a weapon to ram another car as sufficient to establish intention to injure an occupant. The dicta of Pearson LJ in Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1964] 2 QB 745 were also of assistance, although no automatic or rebuttable presumption applied.

High Court (Administrative Court): judicial review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel’s decision dated 16 June 2006. The Panel’s decision was quashed, and the claimant’s appeal was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.