Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Mr Peter Buckley (instructed by Timms for the Claimant) Mr Johnathan Swift (instructed by The Treasury Solicitors for the Defendant)
____________________ Judgment As Approved by the Court Crown Copyright © HOOPER J. This is an application for judicial review made by M born on 1 April 1983. I shall call her the claimant. She challenges a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel ["the Panel"] to award her only £2,000 as compensation for criminal injury sustained by her. The decision was contained in a letter dated 27 March 2000. In granting permission, Sullivan J. wrote that he was "particularly troubled" by the failure to give reasons in respect of the psychiatric evidence.
He concluded by writing that "it is not possible to give a long-term prognosis".
As Donaldson MR said in Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians v Brain [1981] ICR 542 at 551, the reasons must ` tell the parties in broad terms why they lose or, as the case may be, win '. In every case the adequacy of the reasons must depend upon the nature of the proceedings, the character of the decision-making body and the issues which have been raised before it, particularly if they include issues of fact." (Underlining added) In Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies [1999] 1 All ER 373, at 377, Henry L.J. explained why judges are under a duty to give reasons:
The reason for withholding or reducing an award is explained in paragraphs 8.15 of the scheme:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.