A decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to reject several claims that were filed out of time has been criticised by a senior judge as “manifestly unsatisfactory”.

Sir Christopher Clarke, the President of the Court of Appeal, spoke of his “disquiet“ at the board’s procedures after hearing the testimony of four victims of violent crime yesterday.

The court heard how each of the appellants had filed claims with the CICB, only to then be told that they would not be accepted because they were submitted too late.

Under legislation, claims for compensation will be accepted only if they are submitted within one year of the event that resulted in injury, although the board does have the discretion to extend that time limit to two years.

Appealing that decision, each of the four victims pointed out that they were advised that they could not file a claim until a conviction had been secured — which in all cases was several years after they had been injured.

They also said that they were never informed of a time restriction by the board or the Department of Public Prosecutions.

Valerie Raynor explained how her son, Amon Brown, was stabbed to death by his son Tyshaun Brown on July 8, 2020. Tyshaun Brown was arrested and appeared in court a week later, where he admitted the attack. However, he was not convicted until March 2022 and was sentenced to life behind bars a month later.

In court yesterday, Ms Raynor said that she discovered that her family was entitled to compensation only after her grandson had been sentenced.

She added that after contacting the CICB she was told that her application would not be accepted unless it included her son’s death certificate — something that she was not able to obtain until December 2022 ‒ almost 2½ years after her son was killed.

Ms Raynor said: “I am only asking for the money that I paid to bury my son. His daughter still resides with me, and I’m a senior citizen living on pension cheques.

“Justice delayed is justice denied, and it was not my fault that these things were delayed.”

A second appellant, Christina Belboda, recounted how her infant son received head injuries while attending a nursery school in October 2018.

Police launched an investigation into the incident, but closed the case in May 2019 because of a lack of evidence of any criminal liability.

It was reopened in July 2020 after the discovery of new evidence, and the school’s owner, Vernesha Symonds, was finally arrested and charged in February 2021. She was convicted and given a suspended sentence in March 2022 — 3½ years after Ms Belboda’s son had been injured.

Yesterday, Ms Belboda said that she first learnt about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board through the Department of Public Prosecutions after Symonds’s conviction. She began the process of making a claim in June 2022, when she contacted the board’s secretary, Kenneth Scott, to get more information.

She said she was never advised that claims were time-sensitive. Instead, she was told that applications would not be accepted unless forms were completed with all necessary documents attached.

Ms Belboda finally submitted a claim in October 2022 after obtaining medical records from a hospital in Miami, where her son had had to undergo brain surgery.

She said: “I have had to shoulder a financial burden, and while I understand that there are rules that we have to follow, those rules don’t seem to be common knowledge.

“It is unbearable that the time limit was never explained, and this is something that needs to be put in place so that this doesn’t happen again. I feel that the whole process is very ambiguous.

“I have done this for my son. I think I did my best, regardless of the outcome.”

Two other appellants also claimed that they were given little or incorrect information when submitting claims.

Tio Smith was stabbed on Dundonald Street on Christmas Eve 2019 by Jaha Mallory. Although Mallory was arrested and charged within days, the case dragged through the courts for more than two years until the defendant finally plead guilty in May 2022. Mallory was given a three-year jail term in October 2022.

In court yesterday, Mr Smith said that he was incapacitated for months after the stabbing following open heart surgery in the US.

He was given a compensation form by the DPP in June 2022 after Mallory’s guilty plea, and submitted it to the CICB shortly after. He said that he believed the compensation clock would not start ticking until the DPP had secured a conviction.

A fourth appellant, Vincent Robinson, was shot in the shoulder outside the Spinning Wheel in Hamilton on December 22, 2019. His attackers have never been brought to justice.

Now suffering from brain damage, he was represented in court yesterday by his aunt, Joanne Tucker.

Ms Tucker told the appeals panel that she was made aware of possible compensation a year after the shooting and contacted a friend working in the government who e-mailed her a form.

Ms Tucker said that she filed that document on December 23, 2021 — two years and one day after the shooting. She pointed out that it was difficult to obtain medical documents from a hospital in the Cayman Islands, where her nephew had been treated, and also said that she was never informed of the two-year time limit.

She also said that the Covid pandemic, which was at its height in 2021, had made it “very difficult to get information”.

Wendy Greenidge, for the Attorney-General, defended the board’s decisions in all four cases.

She said that under the Bermuda Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, the board was legally bound to reject any claim after the two-year limit, regardless of the circumstances.

Although the judges accepted that as a point of law, they questioned why applicants were never advised of any time restraint.

They also suggested that CICB literature erroneously insinuated that claims would only be considered if all supporting documents were provided.

Justice of Appeal Geoffrey Bell suggested that a complainant “might be forgiven” if they believed their application would not be processed until all supporting documentation was supplied.

Fellow Justice of Appeal Ian Kawaley added: “The problem is there are no flashing lights saying that you have to get your application in within two years.”

Sir Christopher was more direct when questioning Ms Greenidge.

He demanded: “Where can you find the existence of a one or two-year time limit?”

Ms Greenidge replied: “There is none. I accept that there may be some misinformation.”

Sir Christopher concluded: “Right. This is manifestly unsatisfactory. I don’t think I need to go through my view that it is manifestly unjust.”

He suggested that the only way anyone would discover the time limit clause would be by looking up the 1973 Act on the Bermuda Laws website.

“I don’t think many people in Bermuda do that,” he added.

“We will have to report our acute disquiet to the people of the Ministry of Justice, and no doubt others.”

The appeals panel will deliver its ruling at a later date.