![[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
“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
“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 termed “nexus offenders” - are entitled to be treated differently in certain respects from other offenders.”
There was no nexus between the offending by the appellants in A&B (for which they held unspent convictions) and the people trafficking offences of which they were the victim (in respect of which they made the compensation claim). The appellants did not come within the nexus offender category as the offences for which they held unspent convictions occurred some time prior to the trafficking (and in another jurisdiction).
The Applicant submits as the decision in A&B is not determinative of the question of discrimination for a sub group of victims of trafficking (the nexus offenders), it could not be determinative of the same for victims of CSA. The appellant argues it remains an open question as to whether victims of CSA should be considered “blameless victims” generally and that A&B does not provide the answer to this question.
- 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