[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> M, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2004] EWHC 3149 (Admin) (20 December 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/3149.html Cite as: [2004] EWHC 3149 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		20th December 2004

SHORT SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT

1. MR JUSTICE NEWMAN: On 28th June 2004, I gave a judgment in this application for judicial review which dismissed all the arguments advanced on behalf of the claimant but left open a question of relief based upon the Human Rights Act. As I mentioned in paragraph 43 of the judgment, the relief on that basis was sought only at a very late stage by reference to a case proceeding in Scotland, namely the case of Smillie. The matter has now come back before me today in the light of the judgment of the Outer House Court of Session, the opinion of Lord McEwan, in the case of Smillie. It is not necessary for me to go into the detail of the judgment, suffice it to say that in the case, Lord McEwan dismissed the claimant's contention in respect of the Human Rights Act claim.
2. Miss Harris who appeared today has very helpfully informed the court that she has considered the judgment, and notwithstanding that she is informed the petitioner in that case intends to appeal, it is nevertheless her considered view that the prospects of success on the Human Rights argument are not such as to justify any application to this court in connection with the forthcoming appeal, nor that any special consideration should be paid to the outstanding result in that appeal if it proceeds. But she has now made an application for permission to appeal the judgment which I gave on 28th June 2004. She submits that there are merits sufficient to justify the grant of permission. She also can pray in aid, and the court is very conscious of this from the facts of the case, that so far as the claimant is concerned, this matter is of great importance and gives rise to the potentiality, if he were right in his legal argument, for a very substantial claim.
3. But despite the sympathy that one has for the claimant, and the obvious desire that a claimant in situations such as this should obtain relief in proceedings if that is possible, I am not persuaded that the merits of the argument she advances are sufficient to fall within the criteria for granting of permission to appeal.
4. Thus, on balance, recognising as I do how important this is to the claimant, I must leave the matter for the Court of Appeal to decide whether or not they take a different view to that which I have taken.
5. Thank you very much indeed.
6. MISS HARRIS: Thank you, my Lord. My Lord, could I ask for an extension of the period for lodging an appeal to 28 days?
7. MR JUSTICE NEWMAN: Yes, of course.
8. MISS HARRIS: Thank you very much, my Lord, and just a detailed assessment as your Lordship gave last time.
9. MR JUSTICE NEWMAN: Yes, of course. Thank you for your help, both of you, today.