[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)

There was no error of law in the FtT’s decision or its conclusions. I am satisfied that there was no unlawful discrimination nor breach of art. 14 (for the purposes of A1P1 or Articles 3 and 8) in the application of the exclusionary rule to the Applicant in denying her the right to compensation in circumstances where she was a victim of CSA but went on to commit an offence for which she held an unspent conviction. I am satisfied that there was no error of law in the FtT finding that there was no basis to justify preferential/ a difference in treatment for victims of CSA with unspent convictions because it was unable to find that the Applicant was a nexus offender and that any difference in her treatment was justified in any event.

I do not accept the Applicant’s argument that the decision of the Supreme Court in A&B is of contextual significance only and not dispositive in relation to this application. The FtT, correctly in my view, concluded the decision in A&B and the Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding the operation of the exclusionary rule applies in this case. There are not grounds on which to distinguish it. The decision of the Supreme Court is binding on the FtT and the Upper Tribunal.

The FtT did not make a material error of law and neither ground for judicial review succeeds. It is therefore not necessary for me to consider the issue of remedy.

For the reasons set out above I dismiss this application for judicial review and confirm the decision of the FtT to dismiss the Applicant’s appeal against the refusal of compensation.