Criminal Injuries Compensation Board: Report and Accounts for 2013.

STATES OF JERSEY

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD: REPORT AND ACCOUNTS FOR 2013

Presented to the States on 17th April 2014 by the Minister for Home Affairs

STATES GREFFE

2014   Price code: C  R.50

REPORT

The  Jersey  Criminal  Injuries  Compensation  Scheme  came  into  force  on 1st May 1991.

Some facts and figures

During the 22 years which the Scheme has been in operation, the number of applications received has varied from year to year, from 44 in 1992 (the first full year of operation) and 34 in 2013, with applications peaking in 2001 at 106. Consequently, 2013 has seen the lowest number of applications received in a full year since the inception of the Scheme. However, compensation paid to applicants increased from £45,840 in 1992 to a high point' of £478,790 in 2013, with a total of  just  over  £4.8 million  now  having  been  paid.  Currently,  overall,  16%  of compensation (representing 36% of applications received) is paid in amounts of up to £3,000; compensation of just over 53% of the total amount has been paid to 6% of applications which have resulted in awards of £10,000 or more; whilst a further 39% of applications result in a nil award. The overall annual average award in 2013 was £6,735 (excluding awards of £10,000 or more, the average award falls to £1,944). Just over 6% of the applications received to date were from Police Officers, the majority of whom were on duty. To date, a total of 121 applications (approximately 8.4% of all applications submitted) have been received for a hearing (appeal'). The current minimum award of compensation (before  deductions)  is  £1,500  (set  in  2009);  and  the  maximum  (set  in  1998) remains at £100,000.

Background

1. The States, on 4th December 1990, approved a draft Act (R&O 8143, as subsequently  amended  by  R&Os  8239,  8497,  8769,  9234  and  51/2002) establishing  a  Scheme  to provide  compensation  for  victims  of  crimes  of violence  to replace  the  Scheme  set  out  in the  Act  of  the  States  dated 12th May 1970 (R&O 5350). On 10th September 2009, the States adopted a revised Scheme (P.113/2009) which consolidated all previous amendments and incorporated a number of further changes recommended by the Board; and most recently – on 2nd May 2012 – the States adopted the current, further revised  Scheme.  Article 10(a)  of  the  1990  Act  sets  out  the  scope  of  the Scheme, the essence of which is as follows –

the Board may make ex gratia payments of compensation in any case where the applicant or, in the case of an application by a spouse or dependant, the deceased –

1. sustained, in the Island or on a Jersey ship, personal injury directly attributable to a crime of violence (including arson or poisoning) or the apprehension or attempted apprehension of an offender or a suspected offender or to the prevention or attempted prevention of an offence or to the giving of help to a police officer who is engaged in any such activity; or

2. sustained personal injury directly attributable to a crime of violence (including arson or poisoning) in respect of which a court in the Island has jurisdiction by virtue of section 686 or 687 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 or such enactments as from time to time replace them.

2. In 1992, the then Defence Committee, conscious of the limitations of the 1970 Scheme (which provided for compensation only in cases where members of the public came voluntarily to the aid of another member of the public or the police and were injured in so doing), widened the scope of the Scheme to include crimes of violence generally. The 1990 Scheme came into force on 1st May 1991 in respect of injuries suffered on or after that date. Applications in respect of injuries suffered before 1st May 1991 are dealt with under the terms of the 1970 Scheme.
3. The current  version  of  the  Scheme,  as  well  as  the  guide  to the  Scheme (entitled "Victims of Crimes of Violence"), incorporates all the amendments to the Scheme since its inception in the form of the Revised Scheme which was adopted by the States on 2nd May 2012.

Membership of the C.I.C.B.

4. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board comprises Advocate C.J. Dorey (Chairman, from June 2006), Advocates R.J. Michel and L.M. Gould (former Chairmen),  Advocates  A.S. Regal,  D.J. Benest,  Advocate  M.E. Whittaker, together  with  Advocate C. Hall  and  Advocate L.K.A. Richardson  (both appointed  at  the  beginning  of  2013) –  these  are  the  members  who  are "advocates or solicitors of the Royal Court of not less than 5 years' standing" [Article 4(a)  of  the  Scheme] –  and  lay'  members  Mr. M.A. Payne, Mrs. C.L. Jeune , Dr. G. Llewellin and Mrs. J. Carlin. The Minister wishes to record his appreciation to all members of the Board for the work they have undertaken. The existing Board members were re-appointed by the Minister for further periods ranging from 2 to 5 years from 1st May 2012. Following a review of the method of appointing to the Board, vacancies for lay members are advertised in accordance with Appointments Commission guidelines and expressions of interest considered, leading to candidates being shortlisted, interviewed and selected by a Panel comprising the Jersey C.I.C.B. Chairman and  a  representative  from  each  of  States  Human  Resources  and  the Appointments Commission. Two lay members will be appointed during 2014 in order to replace members whose term of office will have expired. Any vacancy which arises for a legally-qualified member is circulated to the Law Society of Jersey for dissemination throughout those in the legal profession with the requisite experience, and thereafter the candidates are interviewed and selected in a similar manner to the lay members. Three vacancies for legally-qualified members will arise in 2015.

Withholding or reducing compensation

5. Under  Article 15  of  the  Scheme,  the  Board  may  withhold  or  reduce compensation if it considers that –

1. the applicant has not taken all reasonable steps to inform the police;
2. the applicant has failed to give all reasonable assistance to the Board;
3. having regard to the conduct of the applicant before, during or after the events giving rise to the claim or to his character and way of life, itis inappropriate that a full award, or any award at all, be granted; and

furthermore, compensation will not be payable –

4. if the injury was sustained accidentally, unless the Board is satisfied that the applicant was at the time taking an exceptional risk which was justified in all the circumstances.

Operation of the Scheme in 2013

6. The Board received 46 applications for the award of compensation under the 1990 Scheme during the period 1st January to 31st December 2013. Because of  the  length  of  time  it sometimes  takes  to finalize  an  award,  not  all applications are concluded in the calendar year they are received. Examples of the nature of applications and awards made in 2013 are as follows –

1. The applicant, A, was punched in the face in a completely unprovoked attack when going about his duties at work. He suffered a fractured dislocation of the nasal bone and displaced fracture of the neck of the femur of his hip. The fracture of the hip had to be fixed with screws. There was a lengthy period of recovery; A was off work for one year and was not able to return to working overtime before he retired. The Board awarded £9,800 by way of general damages and £8,926.55 by way of special damages which covered loss of earnings and a broken denture.
2. The applicant, B, went to his girlfriend's flat after having been out drinking. An argument ensued. The argument spilled out of the flat into the street where 2 other people became involved. One of them shouted that she was going to stab B; his response (in a fit of bravado) was to do so. The assailant tried to stab B in the stomach (but failed) but  managed  to cut  him  on  the  cheek.  The assailant  was  duly convicted.  The cut  to the  cheek  resulted  in a  scar  and  certain numbness. The gross figure for general damages was £4,500. Loss of earnings was also awarded in the sum of £280. The total award was reduced by 70% in light of the fact that on the night B was drunk, had acted aggressively and in addition had a criminal record.

3. The applicant, C, was a Police Officer. In the course of arresting an individual he sustained injury. Accordingly, he fell within the Scheme since compensation can be paid not only when somebody is the victim of  a  crime  of  violence,  but  also  if  they  sustain  injury  whilst apprehending  an  offender.  C  sustained  a  soft  tissue  injury  to his thumb, but it was not sufficient to require him to take any time off work  and  on  medical  examination  little  was  seen.  Accordingly, although C fell within the Scheme, any award of damages fell below the  minimum  allowed  of  £1,500  and  accordingly  there  was  a  nil award.
4. The applicant, D, was a Doorman. In the course of his duties he had to eject somebody from the bar where he was working. That person proved aggressive and a number of his friends came up and acted in a similarly  aggressive  way.  D,  in attempt  to avoid  the  aggressive actions,  fell  backwards  and  injured  his  left  shoulder.  The Board accepted that D was in fear of imminent assault, which is a crime of violence. As a result of the fall, D sustained a significant injury to his shoulder, including a fracture of the shoulder socket. Surgery was required. D was awarded £20,000 by way of general damages and loss of earnings of £3,434. Social Security benefits received by D had to be deducted, resulting in a net award of £23,434.
5. The applicant, E, was sexually assaulted whilst jogging. The police arrested the assailant, who was duly convicted of an indecent assault. The Board accepted that E was the victim of a crime of violence. E did not suffer any physical injury, but was traumatised. The Board requested medical/psychiatric/psychological evidence, but E did not co-operate with the Board in providing the same. Accordingly, the Board was unable to make any award.

7. The Board received 3 requests for hearings during 2013, (all of which related to claims  where  the  applicant  had  appealed  against  the  decision  of  the 2-member Panel's initial award). During 2013, the Board held 3 hearings, and in 2 cases the amounts initially awarded were uplifted, with 1 case remaining unresolved and further information being sought for a hearing to be held at a later date.
8. Of  the  1,439 applications  received  since  1st  May  1991 –  1,365  had  been resolved as at 31st December 2013. Of the 74 applications in the process of resolution  at  the  end  of  2013,  7  related  to hearings  which  remained unresolved, 16 had received awards which included an element of interim payment and 13 others had been determined which awaited acceptance by the applicant.  A  total  of  38 applications  awaited  reports  and/or  further information.
9. Alcohol-related incidents. The Board receives many applications in which drink  has  been  a  substantial  cause  of  the  victim's  misfortune.  From information available on the 34 applications received in 2013, 20 of those (that is 59%) involved the consumption of alcohol by either the assailant or the victim. Many of these incidents occurred in places and situations which the victims might have avoided had they been sober or not willing to run some

kind of risk. In such circumstances the Board may make an award, but only after looking very carefully at the circumstances to ensure that the applicant's conduct "before, during or after the events giving rise to the claim" was not such that it would be inappropriate to make a payment from public funds.

Statistical information

10. Appendix 1 sets out statistics on activities during the period 1st January to 31st December 2013, relating to claims made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
11. Appendix 2(a) shows, in the form of a bar graph, the rate of applications received during 2013 (34); and Appendix 2(b) shows in tabular form month by month, the total number of applications received annually from 2003 to 2013.
12. Appendix 3 shows the range of awards made by the Board during the period 1st May 1991 to 31st December 2013.
13. Appendix 4 shows the accounts of the Board for the period 1st January to 31st  December  2013  and  for  the  years  2005  to 2012,  for  comparative purposes.
14. The Board was generally satisfied with the working of the 1990 Scheme, as amended. For 2013, funding of the Scheme was provided from the budget of the Home Affairs Department, although Article 6 of the Scheme does state that all payments made and expenses incurred will be paid out of the general revenue of the States. The Board notes that, in relation to its recommendation made in 2002, there should be an increase in the maximum award (which is currently £100,000) to £250,000, in order to bring it closer in line with similar awards made in respect of common law damages, the Minister for Home Affairs – answering an oral question asked of him in the States on 5th April 2011 – indicated that: "In the present circumstances in which this Assembly has  agreed  to  find  cuts  in  existing  public  expenditure  of  the  order  of £65 million over 3 years and where there are significant pressures to increase public expenditure in a variety of areas, I am not able to recommend to the States an increase in the maximum award of £100,000." It is worthy of note that, in recent years, a number of substantial awards have been made – some in the maximum sum of £100,000. Had the Board's recommendation that the maximum award payable under the Scheme be increased been implemented, and the necessary budget provided, itis likely that the award payable to some applicants who are presently limited to receiving £100,000 would have been significantly higher. The Board remains concerned that some very deserving applicants are suffering considerable hardship as a result of this failure to increase  the  maximum  award.  In  relation  to Article 43A  of  the  Scheme whereby (w.e.f. 10th September 2009) awards are required to be accepted within 6 months of their notification to applicants, after which time they will lapse,  one  award  (in  the  sum  of  £3,316)  lapsed  during  2012  under  that provision.

APPENDIX 1 RATE OF APPLICATIONS 1ST JANUARY TO 31ST DECEMBER 2013

NOTE: The figure for the total "Amount awarded" in this Appendix does not match

the figure for the total "Compensation paid" in Appendix 4 because some awards are not paid until the following year and/or some payments relate to awards made in a preceding year.

APPENDIX 2(a)

APPENDIX 2(b)

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Applications received for the period 1st January to 31st December 2013 (and comparative figures for 2003 to 2012)

APPENDIX 3

RANGE OF AWARDS 1ST MAY 1991 TO 31ST DECEMBER 2013 Total number of applications received = 1,439

Total number of applications determined = *1,365

N.B. The lowest award to date (other than nil) was £120, and the highest £100,000.

(Numbers in brackets represent numbers of applications. *The two figures for the total number  of  applications  determined  do  not  match  because  some  applications  receive elements of an award in different calendar years.)

[Numbers in square brackets represent the percentage, by amount, of the total awards made;  and  the  square  bracketed  brackets  represent,  by  category,  the  percentage  of awards made of the total number of awards made.]

APPENDIX 4 ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD 1ST JANUARY TO 31ST DECEMBER 2013

(AND COMPARATIVE FIGURES FOR 2005 TO 2012)

Notes:

1. From 1995, payment to members of the Board in respect of their time spent on applications has been made at a rate of £50 an hour. Comparative figures from 2000 to date are as follows –

2. The figure for the total "Compensation paid" in this Appendix does not match the total "Amount awarded" in Appendix 1 because some payments relate to awards made in a preceding year and/or some awards are not paid until the following year.

3. The heading "Administration" was introduced in 2004, as a consequence of the decisions made during the 2004 Fundamental Spending Review process, in order to reflect the payment by the Home Affairs Department to the States Greffe  of  a  sum  representing  the  cost  incurred  by  the  States  Greffe  in servicing the Board's administrative needs. In 2006 and 2008, in view of the pressure upon the Home Affairs budget at the time, this cost was not passed on for those years.
4. The years 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 saw a number of awards being made at or near the maximum permitted under the Scheme (£100,000). This led to higher than usual calls on the Scheme and necessitated a significantly increased allocation of funding to meet the awards made in those years.