Shepherd v Shepherd

The appellant, Shepherd, sought to appeal a decision to refuse him criminal injuries compensation on the basis that the decision-maker did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether he would benefit from the award. The decision-maker had concluded that there was no evidence that the appellant would be able to gain any benefit from the award, and that he was therefore not eligible for compensation. The appeal was heard de novo by the court, which was required to make its own assessment of the evidence and determine whether the appellant was eligible for compensation. The legal issues before the court were whether the decision-maker had sufficient evidence to make a decision, and whether the court could take into account additional evidence and information that had been presented in the appeal.

The court held that the decision-maker had not had sufficient evidence to make a decision, and that the appeal should therefore be allowed. The court found that the decision-maker had not considered all of the relevant principles in making their decision, and had not considered whether the appellant would be able to benefit from the award. The court held that it was appropriate for it to consider additional evidence and information that had been presented in the appeal, and that it could take into account this new evidence when making its decision. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to show that the appellant would be able to benefit from the award, and that he was therefore eligible for compensation.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the original decision-maker for reassessment in light of the new evidence. The court held that the decision-maker should consider all of the relevant principles, and should make a decision based on whether the appellant would be able to benefit from the award. The court held that it was appropriate for the decision-maker to take into account any additional evidence and information that had been presented in the appeal, and that it should make its decision based on all of the evidence before it. The court held that the appellant was eligible for compensation, and that the decision-maker should make a new decision in light of this.