![[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
at paragraphs 65-72. In particular, it refused to distinguish A&B on the three grounds advanced by the applicant’s counsel On the basis the offending may have been caused by being a victim of CSA as a child. I will refer to this as the “nexus argumen
at paragraphs 65-72. In particular, it refused to distinguish A&B on the three grounds advanced by the applicant’s counsel;
On the basis the offending may have been caused by being a victim of CSA as a child. I will refer to this as the “nexus argument” and have dealt with this at paragraphs 35-43 above. I consider the FtT were entitled to come to this conclusion. It also noted at paragraph 68 of the written reasons the “nuanced rules” referred to by the Supreme Court at paragraph 91 of the judgment in A&B, allowing mitigation to be considered by the sentencing court, was considered to be a significant point by the FtT.
The FtT disagreed with what I will refer to as the “consultation point” (ie the consultation process and Equality Impact Assessment carried out prior to the introduction of the scheme) at paragraph 69 of their written reasons. I consider they were entitled to do so and they have clearly set out their reasons.
The recommendation argument. The FtT noted the point raised by counsel for the applicant regarding the recommendation that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse made in their Interim Report in April 2018 that the CICA scheme is revised so “awards are not automatically rejected in circumstances where an applicant’s criminal convictions are likely to be linked to their CSA”.
- Heading
- The application for judicial review is dismissed
- Grounds for Judicial Review
- The hearing of the judicial review application
- Factual background
- The Law
- The 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme and the exclusionary rule
- “ Annex D sets out the circumstances in which an award under this Scheme will be withheld or reduced because the applicant to whom an award would otherwise be made has unspent convictions.”
- The Decision of the Supreme Court in A & B v CICA [2021] UKSC 27
- The parties arguments in summary
- The FtT decision
- Discussion and analysis of the FtT decision
- Protocol 1, Article 1: Protection of property
- Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a
- “ without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or oth
- Third stage: Difference in treatment
- “I readily accept that people trafficking is a particularly grave crime and that its victims, who are often vulnerable, can suffer grievously. However, many other crimes are no less serious, their vic
- The “nexus offender “argument
- “For present purposes, I am willing to assume that it is arguable that victims of people trafficking who have committed criminal offences in connection with their being trafficked - who might be terme
- Does the applicant come within the category of “ nexus offender”?
- The blameless victim
- Fourth stage; Justification
- “This is clearly a legitimate aim.”
- “I consider, therefore, that the difference in treatment on grounds of other status resulting from Annex D is justified. The measure has the legitimate objective of limiting eligibility to compensatio
- at paragraphs 65-72. In particular, it refused to distinguish A&B on the three grounds advanced by the applicant’s counsel On the basis the offending may have been caused by being a victim of CSA as a child. I will refer to this as the “nexus argumen
- Conclusions