Assault victim accused of "profiting" from compensation

Wednesday 14 November 2018

A £710 compensation order to fix damage to an assault victim's phone and t-shirt has been quashed after he was accused of “profiting rather than being compensated" in the Royal Court.

Michael Robert Connor was sentenced on 4 September this year by Relief Magistrate David Le Cornu to six months' imprisonment for grave and criminal assault, a £300 fine for possession of ecstasy and a £200 fine for possession of cannabis.

The Relief Magistrate also ordered him to pay £500 for the victim's injury as well as £710 for damages to his phone and t-shirt.

But yesterday the Royal Court suggested that order might not have been appropriate, stating that the victim of the grave and criminal assault had failed to give proper evidence of the damage his belongings had suffered.

Connor's lawyer, Advocate Francesca Pinel, appeared in the Royal Court on 31 October to appeal against the compensation order. She said her client did not accept the amount claimed and that the victim had failed to provide "documentary evidence" with his compensation form.

Pictured: Advocate Francesca Pinel was representing Michael Robert Connor.

Advocate Pinel said that the amount claimed by the victim - £650 for the replacement of screen and glass on an iPhone 6 - was "in excess of what it would have cost to replace the phone in its entirety" which would have been obvious to the Relief Magistrate. 

She added that it would also not cost as much as £60 to clean the victim's t-shirt, which was covered in blood after the assault.

Advocate Pinel said that even though the incident had happened in September last year, the victim still hadn’t provided evidence to support his claim. “The loss has not sufficiently been demonstrated,” she told Royal Court Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith. “Therefore my client cannot be asked to pay the untested, uncorroborated claim.”

She went on to suggest that the victim was “profiting rather than being compensated.” “My client is not avoiding responsibility for the incident, “ she continued. “But something has gone wrong and I am asking the Court to put it right.”

Crown Advocate Chris Baglin admitted that it was not ideal that the compensation form was not signed, which the Royal Court Commissioner described as “sloppy.”

He argued that the victim’s shirt was a designer one and that it had been impossible for him to retrieve following testing by the forensic services, while his phone was said to be beyond repair. He added that, while the compensation form sets out that a complainant should attach proof, the law does not require evidence to make a compensation order.

Pictured: Royal Court Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith said it was sloppy that the compensation form hadn't been signed.

The Royal Court Commissioner said he was left “with a sense of unease” regarding the outcome of the compensation order. He said that in the case of claims involving damaged property, “there must presumably be some evidence of the damage and the amount needed to compensate for it.”

He said that “a quick glance at the internet” suggested that a new iPhone 6S could be purchased for £250, if not less, and that £60 for a new T-shirt was “very high.” He wrote: “It seems possible, therefore, that the amount ordered by the Relief Magistrate goes beyond compensation and would give the victim a profit; as Advocate Pinel says, that is not the purpose of the 1994 Compensation Law.”

He also added that the sums involved were significant for Connor, due to his incarceration and lack of savings, and there “may have been an injustice, with [Connor] being ordered to pay a sum which may go well beyond compensation.”

He therefore allowed Connor’s appeal, setting aside the £710 order and sending the matter back to the Magistrate’s Court for the compensation order to be reassessed.

The Commissioner recommended a new form to be completed, dated and signed and for the victim to provide evidence. “If he no longer has receipts for the damaged items, which would be perfectly understandable, he should produce some evidence of the cost of repair or replacement,” he wrote.