The Supreme Court last week ruled that a severely injured man could not obtain compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, largely because he was not a victim of a crime of violence.
The case concerned an incident on the A282 in January 2005, when the injured man, Mr Jones, was driving a gritter along the road.
Slightly ahead of him, in the central lane of the carriageway, was an articulated lorry, and parked on the hard shoulder was a car. As the lorry approached the car a man ran out into the middle of the central lane, turned towards the lorry, and was killed instantly. Unfortunately, the braking lorry swerved into the path of the gritter, and Mr Jones was severely injured. He now requires full-time care.
Mr Jones applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for an award of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001, but this was rejected, essentially on the basis that in terms of the Scheme Mr Jones was not a victim of a crime of violence.
Mr Jones then launched a series of appeals, which has now – unsuccessfully - reached the Supreme Court.
While every sympathy must be felt for the victim and his family, said the Supreme Court in its ruling, the terms of the Scheme did not permit an award of compensation to be made in this case. While he had tried to argue that the actions of the man killed by the lorry had amounted to ‘a crime of violence’, as defined in section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, this had simply not been established.
