A senior judge has ruled a tribunal should have used a dictionary to ascertain the meaning of the word “skull” during its deliberations on a criminal injuries claim.
Lord Brailsford ruled the First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (FTT) made a mistake over the meaning of the word in one of its rulings.
The tribunal was asked to consider a case brought before it by a man who wanted to appeal a decision made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The male, who hasn’t been named, was assaulted and suffered a broken nose in May 2015. The board concluded his injuries weren’t covered by its guidelines and he didn’t receive compensation.
However, the tribunal overturned the board’s decision, saying the man’s injuries were covered by the guidelines. The tribunal concluded the man’s nose formed part of his skull and made an undisclosed award.
The advocate general for Scotland, Lord Keen of Elie, QC, appealed the tribunal’s findings before the nation’s highest civil court, the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
His legal bid came weeks after he appeared before the UK Supreme Court about the Prime Minister’s bid to prorogue Parliament.
Lord Keen’s representative, advocate Christopher Pirie, argued the tribunal hadn’t applied the proper understanding of the word skull.
Yesterday, Lord Brailsford agreed and quashed the FTT ruling. In a written judgment issued at the court, he wrote: “The definition relied upon by the tribunal was at odds with dictionary definitions relied upon by counsel for the petitioners. In the context of statutory interpretation, it is of course, legitimate to consult dictionaries in common use as a means to ascertain the meaning of a word. The dictionary should be ‘well known and authoritative’.
“It is, in my view, routine practice in court to have regard primarily to the Oxford English Dictionary if an aid to interpretation of a word is required.
“The position is, however, different in relation to terms of words which either have a technical meaning or are used in a technical sense. The word ‘skull’ no doubt has an everyday English meaning as is exemplified by the definitions of dictionaries including the Oxford English Dictionary, produced and relied upon by counsel for the petitioner.
“The word is also capable of having a technical meaning that could be different to that of the one in everyday usage.
“It is in the technical sense the FTT and counsel for the interested party sought to construe the word ‘skull’.
The judgment tells of how in 2008, the criminal injuries compensation guidelines had provision for broken noses. People could claim £1,000, £1,500 or £2,000 depending how serious their injuries were.
However, the guidelines were revised in 2012 and provision for broken nose injuries claims were removed.
Lord Brailsford then quashed the tribunal’s decision.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel