This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/apr/18/suicide-case-limits-of-appeal-court
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| M25 suicide case demonstrates limits of court of appeal | M25 suicide case demonstrates limits of court of appeal |
| (5 months later) | |
| In the early hours of a wintry morning eight years ago, a motorist named Barry Hughes parked his car on the hard shoulder of the six-lane carriageway that links the M25 motorway to the Dartford Crossing bridge in Essex. Hughes got out of his car, waited until an articulated lorry was approaching in the centre lane and then ran out into the road. He then stood in its path, facing the lorry with his arms raised. | In the early hours of a wintry morning eight years ago, a motorist named Barry Hughes parked his car on the hard shoulder of the six-lane carriageway that links the M25 motorway to the Dartford Crossing bridge in Essex. Hughes got out of his car, waited until an articulated lorry was approaching in the centre lane and then ran out into the road. He then stood in its path, facing the lorry with his arms raised. |
| Hughes was killed instantly. The inquest into his death returned an open verdict but the obvious inference was that he intended to kill himself. | Hughes was killed instantly. The inquest into his death returned an open verdict but the obvious inference was that he intended to kill himself. |
| All this must have been deeply distressing for the lorry driver, Brian Nash. But there was an even greater tragedy to come. Following not far behind him, but in the nearside lane, was a gritting vehicle. When Nash instinctively braked, the back of his lorry swerved into the gritter's path. There was a collision. The gritter vehicle's cab was completely destroyed and its driver, Gareth Jones, was thrown from his vehicle. He suffered severe injuries and now needs full-time residential care. | All this must have been deeply distressing for the lorry driver, Brian Nash. But there was an even greater tragedy to come. Following not far behind him, but in the nearside lane, was a gritting vehicle. When Nash instinctively braked, the back of his lorry swerved into the gritter's path. There was a collision. The gritter vehicle's cab was completely destroyed and its driver, Gareth Jones, was thrown from his vehicle. He suffered severe injuries and now needs full-time residential care. |
| Lawyers instructed by Jones's mother lodged an application with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). But compensation was refused on the grounds that Jones was not the victim of a violent criminal injury. Hughes may have intended to kill himself but suicide is not a crime. | Lawyers instructed by Jones's mother lodged an application with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). But compensation was refused on the grounds that Jones was not the victim of a violent criminal injury. Hughes may have intended to kill himself but suicide is not a crime. |
| Jones had a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal. His lawyers argued that Hughes had, in fact, committed a crime before he died. Contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, he had inflicted grievous bodily harm (GBH) on Jones. That was a crime of violence which came within the compensation scheme. | Jones had a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal. His lawyers argued that Hughes had, in fact, committed a crime before he died. Contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, he had inflicted grievous bodily harm (GBH) on Jones. That was a crime of violence which came within the compensation scheme. |
| The tribunal disagreed. It was not satisfied that Hughes intended to harm anybody. It was not even satisfied that he was reckless as to whether any level of harm would be caused by his actions. He simply didn't foresee that killing himself might cause physical harm to others. So there was no offence of GBH. | The tribunal disagreed. It was not satisfied that Hughes intended to harm anybody. It was not even satisfied that he was reckless as to whether any level of harm would be caused by his actions. He simply didn't foresee that killing himself might cause physical harm to others. So there was no offence of GBH. |
| Jones challenged the tribunal's decision before the upper tribunal. That challenge also failed. The upper tribunal ruled that there was nothing irrational about the finding by the first-tier tribunal that Hughes was not reckless. | Jones challenged the tribunal's decision before the upper tribunal. That challenge also failed. The upper tribunal ruled that there was nothing irrational about the finding by the first-tier tribunal that Hughes was not reckless. |
| Then things started to go wrong. Jones's lawyers took the case to the court of appeal, where Lord Justice Patten seemed to think that the issue in the case was whether GBH was a crime of violence. He seemed to think that the first-tier tribunal had found against Jones for that reason. | Then things started to go wrong. Jones's lawyers took the case to the court of appeal, where Lord Justice Patten seemed to think that the issue in the case was whether GBH was a crime of violence. He seemed to think that the first-tier tribunal had found against Jones for that reason. |
| It had not. Everyone agreed that GBH was a crime of violence. The only question was whether a person who was so deeply disturbed as to run in front of a lorry would have foreseen the harm that might be caused to others. That Hughes did not foresee this harm was a finding of fact which the tribunal was entitled to make. | It had not. Everyone agreed that GBH was a crime of violence. The only question was whether a person who was so deeply disturbed as to run in front of a lorry would have foreseen the harm that might be caused to others. That Hughes did not foresee this harm was a finding of fact which the tribunal was entitled to make. |
| So the CICA took its case to the supreme court. This week, it overruled the court of appeal. Explaining the supreme court's decision, Lord Hope said there were "signs that the court of appeal [had] allowed itself to be unduly influenced by its own view that it was highly improbable that anyone who runs into the path of traffic on a busy motorway will not at the least foresee the possibility of an accident and of consequential harm being caused to other road users". | So the CICA took its case to the supreme court. This week, it overruled the court of appeal. Explaining the supreme court's decision, Lord Hope said there were "signs that the court of appeal [had] allowed itself to be unduly influenced by its own view that it was highly improbable that anyone who runs into the path of traffic on a busy motorway will not at the least foresee the possibility of an accident and of consequential harm being caused to other road users". |
| But, Hope continued, "the question whether Mr Hughes did actually foresee this possibility was for the first-tier tribunal to answer, not the court of appeal". | But, Hope continued, "the question whether Mr Hughes did actually foresee this possibility was for the first-tier tribunal to answer, not the court of appeal". |
| Expressing "every sympathy" for Jones and his family, Hope made it clear that the CICA and the tribunals had been right all along: the terms of the scheme did not permit an award of compensation in this case. | Expressing "every sympathy" for Jones and his family, Hope made it clear that the CICA and the tribunals had been right all along: the terms of the scheme did not permit an award of compensation in this case. |
| Jones was represented by Linda Levison from the law firm Pattinson & Brewer. She said: "The decision has the effect in our client's case of putting the burden of proof on him to prove what was in the mind of the person committing suicide just before he died. As Mr Hughes is obviously dead and cannot be questioned, I think this is very harsh." | Jones was represented by Linda Levison from the law firm Pattinson & Brewer. She said: "The decision has the effect in our client's case of putting the burden of proof on him to prove what was in the mind of the person committing suicide just before he died. As Mr Hughes is obviously dead and cannot be questioned, I think this is very harsh." |
| Ben Collins of Old Square Chambers, who represented the CICA throughout, said there might be cases of GBH that were non-violent, such as reckless health and safety failures. | Ben Collins of Old Square Chambers, who represented the CICA throughout, said there might be cases of GBH that were non-violent, such as reckless health and safety failures. |
| He also pointed out that a new compensation scheme was introduced in November for claims lodged since then. It says that compensation will not be paid for injuries that result from suicide or attempted suicide, unless the suicidal person acted with intent to injure someone else (as, for example, in the case of a suicide bombing). | He also pointed out that a new compensation scheme was introduced in November for claims lodged since then. It says that compensation will not be paid for injuries that result from suicide or attempted suicide, unless the suicidal person acted with intent to injure someone else (as, for example, in the case of a suicide bombing). |
| What, then, are the lessons of this case? First, that a lowly tribunal can be right and the court of appeal can be wrong. Secondly, appeal courts should not try to substitute their own view of a case for that taken by the court that heard the evidence. Thirdly, that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is becoming ever more limited in its scope. And, fourthly, that those contemplating suicide may not realise the effects of their actions on others. | What, then, are the lessons of this case? First, that a lowly tribunal can be right and the court of appeal can be wrong. Secondly, appeal courts should not try to substitute their own view of a case for that taken by the court that heard the evidence. Thirdly, that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is becoming ever more limited in its scope. And, fourthly, that those contemplating suicide may not realise the effects of their actions on others. |
| We are not told what difference an award of compensation would have made to Jones. Sometimes, such awards are deducted from other benefits. In any event, and very sadly, it appears that he will not be aware that he has he has lost his claim in the supreme court. | We are not told what difference an award of compensation would have made to Jones. Sometimes, such awards are deducted from other benefits. In any event, and very sadly, it appears that he will not be aware that he has he has lost his claim in the supreme court. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |