31:
211:, was seriously sexually assaulted by two men during a burglary at her home. In November, some six months later, she sought compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. A's application to the CICB was refused verbally on 31 August 1993, and subsequently in writing by the end of 1993.
304:
unanimously allowed the appeal, accepting that there was jurisdiction to quash the Board's decision on the ground of taking into account a mistaken fact leading to a breach of the rules of natural justice, which in turn amounted to ″unfairness″. The Lords preferred to base their decision to quash on
250:
Lord Slynn cited two provisions as being relevant to the issue of delay: Order 53, rule 4, of the Rules of the
Supreme Court (pertaining to good reason for an extension of time) and Section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (which deals with hardship, prejudice, detriment, and the justification for a
278:
Unless the court sets aside the initial grant without a separate application having been made for that to be done, there is no power to refuse to grant leave at the substantive hearing on the basis of hardship or prejudice or detriment to good administration, as the court would have already granted
274:
Unless set aside, there is no application for leave to apply for judicial review at the substantive hearing since leave will have already been given. The question of leave will not be re–opened at the substantive hearing on the basis that there is no ground for extending time under Order 53, rule
214:
Five days after the burglary, ′A′ had been examined by a police doctor who had confirmed that the findings of the examination were consistent with the allegation of buggery. ′A′ was told that she did not need to ask for police statements as they would be produced by the police. When A's claim was
515: (UKHL 1999) ("... but, having been told that she should not ask for police statements as they would be produced at the hearing, it would not be surprising that she assumed that if there was a report from the Police Doctor, it would be made available with the police report.").
547: (House of Lords 25 March 1999) ("As Lord Slynn has pointed out, it is not necessary for the determination of the present appeal to enter upon the question whether error of fact can without more be relied upon as a ground for judicial review. (Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough)"),
345:
287:
The House of Lords overruled the Court of Appeal's reconsideration because the issue of whether it had been demonstrated that there was good reason for an extension of the time period had already been concluded at the point of
282:
The questions that fall under the two provisions (good reason for an extension of time) and (hardship, prejudice, detriment, justifying a refusal of leave) may be determined if the application is adjourned to the substantive
215:
heard by the CICB, the report by the police doctor was not included, which led to the Board taking the view that the police witnesses believed that no medical evidence was available to support her claim.
199:, in that a decision could be quashed on the basis of it having taken into account a factual mistake. The case also dealt with the issue of undue delay and guiding principles were laid out.
430:
Lord Slynn said that ′misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact′ is reviewable but emphasised that this is no more than an application of ordinary review principles.
497:, 45 (EWCA (Civ) 2004) ("She was examined five days after the burglary by a police doctor who reported that her findings were consistent with the allegation of buggery.").
223:
When ′A′ made the application for judicial review, she was considerably out of time as the application had not been made within the 3-month period from the date the grounds arose.
366:
617:
488:
328:
235:
607:
337:
597:
279:
leave. In effect, it would be too late to refuse leave. The court does, however, have jurisdiction under section 31(6) to refuse to grant relief.
195:. The case reaffirmed the principle of "misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact" and further developed the doctrine of
271:
If leave is granted, an application to set it aside may be made, although the Court of Appeal have stressed that this should not be encouraged.
30:
188:
101:
570:
423:
446:
292:′s application for review and no good reason had been shown for extending the period within the meaning of Order 53, r. 4(1).
242:, who went on to say that the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to reconsider the question of an extension of time.
612:
316:
132:
533: (UKHL 1999) ("It seems to me that the two provisions produce the following result ... (Lord Slynn)").
301:
231:
191:(CICB) not to award compensation was quashed by the House of Lords as it was deemed to be a breach of the rules of
251:
refusal of leave). A six–point list was set out in order to help elucidate on the effect of the two provisions:
602:
128:
120:
319:
in his closing comments said that the decision would be remitted to the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
268:
application, it is expected that the demonstration of good reason would be from the position of the applicant.
548:
397:
79:
166:
239:
116:
264:
If good reason can be shown for extending the period, the court has the power to grant leave. On an
333: – Successful appeal of 2004 developing error of fact as a distinct ground for judicial review
415:
566:
419:
192:
494:
184:
41:
591:
530:
512:
474:
77:
230:
application fell outside the time period provided for in Order 53, rule 4, of the
341:– judicial review quashing a decision on the grounds of material error of fact
124:
261:
basis, leave can be refused, deferred to the substantive hearing, or granted.
346:
R v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union
447:"Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte A: HL 11 Mar 1999"
257:
226:
The question of leave had been dealt with by the High Court even though
313:—an area of law in a state of flux—to be considered at a later time.
150:
Misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact
52:
Regina v
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A (A.P.)
544:
Regina v. Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte A (A.P.)
393:
Regina v. Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte A (A.P.)
565:(Sixth ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd. p. 382.
561:
Fordham, Michael (July 2012). "<P33.3> (Flux)".
367:"R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A"
255:
When an application for judicial review is made on an
578:
Using unfairness to introduce material error of fact.
471:
R v
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A
180:
R v
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A
24:
R v
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A
138:
112:
107:
97:
89:
84:
73:
65:
57:
47:
37:
23:
477:, 2 AC 330, UKHL 21, 2 WLR 974 (1999), UKHL
526:Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex Parte A
508:Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex Parte A
234:. The order was granted on 14 February 1995 by
489:E v Secretary of State for the Home Department
330:E v Secretary of State for the Home Department
396: (House of Lords 25 March 1999),
8:
147:Quashing a decision on the basis of mistake
29:
20:
338:R (March) v Secretary of State for Health
440:
438:
373:. Independent Law Reports. 15 April 1999
358:
207:On 25 May 1991, a woman, known only as
618:United Kingdom administrative case law
309:and left the question of review as to
238:and was described as ″unambiguous″ by
412:Constitutional and Administrative Law
7:
189:Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
445:Swarbrick, David (21 March 2019).
14:
608:Compensation for victims of crime
16:1999 English House of Lords case
598:1999 in United Kingdom case law
69:2 AC 330, UKHL 21, 2 WLR 974
1:
317:Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
246:Effect of the two provisions
160:Review on a procedural point
133:Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
634:
232:Rules of the Supreme Court
414:(7th ed.). England:
154:Breach of natural justice
143:
28:
563:Judicial Review Handbook
187:where a decision by the
121:Lord Mackay of Clashfern
183:was a 1999 case in the
475:[1999] UKHL 21
167:Supreme Court Act 1981
613:House of Lords cases
418:. pp. 318–319.
410:Alder, John (2009).
240:Lord Slynn of Hadley
117:Lord Slynn of Hadley
93:2 AC 330; 2 WLR 974
495:49 QB 1044
416:Palgrave Macmillan
176:
175:
625:
582:
581:
558:
552:
546:
540:
534:
528:
522:
516:
510:
504:
498:
492:
484:
478:
468:
462:
461:
459:
457:
442:
433:
432:
407:
401:
395:
389:
383:
382:
380:
378:
363:
108:Court membership
33:
21:
633:
632:
628:
627:
626:
624:
623:
622:
603:1999 in England
588:
587:
586:
585:
573:
560:
559:
555:
542:
541:
537:
524:
523:
519:
506:
505:
501:
486:
485:
481:
469:
465:
455:
453:
444:
443:
436:
426:
409:
408:
404:
391:
390:
386:
376:
374:
365:
364:
360:
355:
325:
298:
248:
221:
205:
193:natural justice
172:
153:
131:
127:
123:
119:
102:Court of Appeal
17:
12:
11:
5:
631:
629:
621:
620:
615:
610:
605:
600:
590:
589:
584:
583:
571:
553:
535:
517:
499:
479:
463:
434:
424:
402:
384:
371:CMS-lawnow.com
357:
356:
354:
351:
350:
349:
342:
334:
324:
321:
305:the ground of
297:
294:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
262:
247:
244:
220:
217:
204:
201:
185:United Kingdom
174:
173:
171:
170:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:
136:
135:
114:
113:Judges sitting
110:
109:
105:
104:
99:
95:
94:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
42:House of Lords
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
630:
619:
616:
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
596:
595:
593:
580:
579:
574:
572:9781849461597
568:
564:
557:
554:
550:
545:
539:
536:
532:
527:
521:
518:
514:
509:
503:
500:
496:
491:
490:
483:
480:
476:
472:
467:
464:
452:
448:
441:
439:
435:
431:
427:
425:9780230576629
421:
417:
413:
406:
403:
399:
394:
388:
385:
372:
368:
362:
359:
352:
348:
347:
343:
340:
339:
335:
332:
331:
327:
326:
322:
320:
318:
314:
312:
311:error of fact
308:
303:
295:
293:
291:
281:
277:
273:
270:
267:
263:
260:
259:
254:
253:
252:
245:
243:
241:
237:
233:
229:
224:
218:
216:
212:
210:
202:
200:
198:
197:error of fact
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:
168:
165:
162:
159:
157:Error of fact
156:
152:
149:
146:
145:
142:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
115:
111:
106:
103:
100:
98:Appealed from
96:
92:
88:
83:
80:
78:
76:
72:
68:
64:
61:25 March 1999
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
577:
576:
562:
556:
543:
538:
525:
520:
507:
502:
487:
482:
470:
466:
454:. Retrieved
450:
429:
411:
405:
392:
387:
375:. Retrieved
370:
361:
344:
336:
329:
315:
310:
306:
299:
289:
286:
265:
256:
249:
227:
225:
222:
213:
208:
206:
196:
179:
178:
177:
90:Prior action
85:Case history
51:
18:
451:Swarb.co.uk
236:Carnwath J.
219:Undue delay
163:Undue delay
592:Categories
353:References
307:unfairness
129:Lord Clyde
125:Lord Nolan
74:Transcript
302:Law Lords
323:See also
296:Judgment
283:hearing.
266:ex parte
258:ex parte
139:Keywords
66:Citation
456:25 June
377:20 June
58:Decided
569:
529:,
511:,
493:,
422:
473:
275:4(1).
203:Facts
38:Court
567:ISBN
549:Text
458:2020
420:ISBN
398:Text
379:2020
300:The
169:(31)
228:A′s
209:′A′
594::
575:.
531:21
513:21
449:.
437:^
428:.
369:.
551:.
460:.
400:.
381:.
290:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
