Bushell v Ryder

In the case of Bushell v Ryder, the applicant sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act for injuries sustained during an incident involving the respondents, who were convicted of burglary and attempted robbery whilst armed. The applicant was not named in the indictment but was present and injured during the offence. The central issue was whether the applicant could recover compensation despite not being named in the indictment, and whether the injury was caused by a “personal offence” committed against the applicant, thus making him a “victim” under the Act.

The court examined the definitions of “personal offence” and “victim” within the Criminal Offence Victims Act. The court concluded that the injury was not caused by a “personal offence” as it was not committed against the applicant directly. The court found that for an offence to be considered “personal”, it must be directed at the individual claimant. The applicant’s injuries resulted from the general circumstances of the crime rather than an act specifically targeting him. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant did not meet the definition of a “victim” under the Act, as the injury was not caused by a personal offence committed against him.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for compensation. The court held that the applicant could not recover compensation because the injury did not arise from a personal offence committed against him. The court's decision hinged on the precise interpretation of the statutory definitions and the nature of the injuries sustained. The court found that the applicant did not fit within the scope of the Act’s provisions for compensation.