Drunk fails in criminal compensation claim
12 Jan 05
Appeal court upholds refusal of claim by drunk, disabled when pushed away by taxi passenger
A man who blocked the way of a taxi while drunk, physically molested a woman passenger who remonstrated with him, and was permanently disabled when falling after being pushed away by the woman's husband, has lost his claim for criminal injuries compensation.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel had refused a claim on behalf of James Bennett, who fell and hit his head after being pushed by Thomas Lafferty. Yesterday the appeal court in the Court of Session (Lords Osborne, Hamilton and Macfadyen) upheld the refusal of a petition for judicial review of the Panel's decision.
Lord Osborne, giving the court's opinion, said that after blocking the path of the taxi Mr Bennett, who was drunk, sat on the bonnet. Mr Lafferty's wife Yvonne, married just four weeks before, got out to remonstrate with Mr Bennett. An altercation followed and Thomas Lafferty became involved. The outcome was that Thomas Lafferty pushed James Bennett on the chest, with the result that he fell backwards, striking his head on the kerb and sustaining very serious injuries. Thomas Lafferty was charged with assault and attempted murder, but no proceedings followed.
The Appeal Panel, agreeing with the procurator fiscal, had concluded that although Mr Bennett had no hostile intent towards Mrs Lafferty, he had laid hands of her. Mr Lafferty's actions in pushing him away were understandable and did not amount to a crime of violence.
Before the court it was argued that the Panel had not asked themselves whether the force used was only what was reasonable in the circumstances; and that the Panel had gone wrong in thinking there was a conflict between two statements by the taxi driver, Mr Morrissey, who at one point told the police that he thought Mr Lafferty had gone "over the top".
Lord Osborne said it was correctly recognised that the important issue was not so much what Mr Bennett had done, but Mr Lafferty's perception of what he had done. The Panel had given careful consideration to that matter. "In saying that the [Panel] considered that Thomas Lafferty's actions were 'understandable and do not amount to a crime of violence'," he said, "we consider that the [Panel] are, in effect, saying that the actions of Thomas Lafferty were within the range of what could be seen as a reasonable response in the circumstances as perceived by him. We consider that there was a sufficient basis for this conclusion in the factual findings made by the [Panel]."
While the Panel's comment "A simple push would clearly be a crime of violence" might not apply in all circumstances, any error was in Mr Bennett's favour.
The court's opinion can be read at www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/P1168.html .