![[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Factual background
Factual background.
No one reading the papers in this case could fail to empathise with the applicant, given the difficulties she has endured.She became a victim of child sexual abuse, aged only 8 years. This was perpetrated in approximately 1990 by a teacher at the boarding school she attended. Despite reporting the incident shortly afterwards, no prosecution was brought at the time. The perpetrator was eventually convicted of the sexual assault against her in July 2017, some 27 years after the offence was committed. In respect of the offence against the Applicant the perpetrator received a 3-year sentence, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, and a requirement to be included on the Sex Offenders’ Register for 10 years. It has since been found that he went on to commit further sexual offences against other children between the time of his sexual assault of the applicant and his eventual conviction for the offence.
The Applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of using threatening and abusive words or behaviour, causing harassment, alarm or distress on 21st March 2017. She was convicted and sentenced to a community order which did not expire until March 2019. She made an application for compensation in respect of the CSA on 3rd October 2017. Her application was refused on 29th November 2017.This was maintained on review on 30th January 2018.
- 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