![[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
KM v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and Secretary of State for Justice
[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. UA-2022-000494-CIC
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Between:
KM
Applicant
- v –
First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Respondent
and
(1) Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
(2) Secretary of State for Justice
Interested Parties
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Edell Fitzpatrick
Hearing date: 12th July 2023
Hearing venue: Field House, Breams Buildings, London EC4
Representation:
Applicant: Shu Shin Luh of counsel, instructed by Centre for Women’s Justice
Respondent: Not represented
Interested Parties: Robert Moretto of counsel, instructed by Government Legal Department
DECISION
- 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