Simons v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 1990 Civil Appeal No 9

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1990
• Date: 14 November 1990
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1990
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bermuda)

In the Court of Appeal for Bermuda

Roberts P.

Da Costa, J.A.

Henry, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1990

Florence Priscilla Simons

Appellant

and

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Respondent

Miss Keren Lomas (Vaucrosson's) for the Appellant

Mr. Khamisi Tokunbo (A.G.'s Chambers) for Attorney General

Housecroft v BurnettUNK [1986] 1 All ER 332

Damages for criminal injury — Appeal against general damages awarded and costs — Personal injury — Scarring

JUDGMENT

Roberts P.

Preliminary

“This is an appeal under Section 16 of the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Act, 1973. Inter alia, this Act makes provision for the payment of damages suffered by victims of crimes of violence.

The appellant, a single woman aged 42, sustained injuries which were inflicted on her by Sherrylynn Joanne Ible, who later pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm on the appellant.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (‘the Board’) awarded to the appellant, on 11th April 1990, the following amounts—

General damages	$5000.00
Special damages	$1196.78
Legal fees	$550.00

“The appellant does not ask for any variation of the figure for special damages, and confines herself to seeking an increase in the amounts given by way of general damages and for legal costs.

General damages

Section 16 of the Act permits a party to the proceedings before the Board (or the Attorney General) to appeal on the grounds that the decision is erroneous in law or unreasonable.

it has not been suggested that the Board has made any error of law, but it is contended that it has been unreasonable in its awards. The Board is not required by the Act to give reasons, though it has often been said that a tribunal should give reasons for its decisions, however brief these may be, as a Court dealing with such an appeal is necessarily hampered by the lack of them.

In this instance, however, the Board did give brief reasons when considering the question of general damages, commenting—‘residual scarring (not keloid), some facial scars barely noticeable—cheek scarring worst. Reviewed previous awards.’

No reasons were given for the award of legal costs, though the Board noted that $2,041 was claimed.

In general, an appellate court will not interfere with the discretion of a tribunal unless, apart from an error in law, the tribunal's decision is unjust or plainly wrong. In this instance there is a somewhat wider power to intervene whenever...