Stannard v Lane

Jeffrey Raymond Keith Stannard applied for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, following an assault that resulted in a head injury for which David Lane was convicted. Lane was acquitted of more serious charges related to the same incident, which also caused other serious injuries to Stannard. The primary legal issue was whether the compensation should be limited to the consequences of the offence for which Lane was convicted and whether Stannard's behaviour contributed to his injuries. Additionally, the court had to decide on the relevance of certain allegations made in Stannard's affidavit that were contrary to his trial evidence.

The court determined that compensation was limited to the consequences of the offence for which Lane was convicted, and it was Stannard's responsibility to prove on the balance of probabilities that his injuries resulted from that specific offence. The court held that the jury's finding of self-defence did not necessarily mean that Stannard's behaviour contributed to his injuries. Furthermore, the court ruled that the serious allegations made in Stannard's affidavit, which were contrary to his trial evidence, were irrelevant to the application and should be disregarded.

The court awarded Stannard $2,250 in compensation for the injuries directly related to the assault for which Lane was convicted. Additionally, the court ordered that paragraphs 22 to 42 of Stannard's affidavit be struck from the record due to their irrelevance and contradiction to the trial evidence. This decision underscores the importance of limiting compensation to the specific offence for which the offender was convicted and the necessity for evidence to be relevant and consistent with the application at hand.