The application for judicial review is dismissed
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Reasons for decision.
The application for judicial review.
This is an application to the Upper Tribunal for judicial review of the decision of the First tier Tribunal (FtT) dated 14th December 2021. In these proceedings, the Applicant was the appellant before the FtT, the FtT is the Respondent and the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority (CICA) and the Secretary of State for Justice are the Interested Parties. The FtT dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against CICA’s decision to refuse her application for compensation in respect of a sexual offence committed against her when she was a child. This was because, at the time she applied for compensation, she had an unspent conviction.
References in what follows to
“CICS”is to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012,
“CICA” is to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority,
“ECHR and the Convention” are to the European Convention on Human Rights, and
“articles” and “protocols” are to articles and protocols of the Convention.
“CSA” is to child sexual abuse.
“Exclusionary Rule” refers to paragraph 26 and Annex D of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 which excludes victims of crimes of violence with relevant unspent convictions from receiving an award of compensation for their criminal injuries.
“IPs” is to Interested Parties
The FtT considered the decision of the Supreme Court in A and B v CICA [2021] UKSC 27 was determinative of the issues in the appeal and binding on them. The FtT therefore considered they could reach no decision other than to dismiss the Applicant’s appeal, applying paragraph 26 and Annex D of the scheme (the exclusionary rule).
The FtT’s decision was made subsequent to a telephone hearing on 14th December 2021 where the Applicant participated in the hearing and both the applicant and CICA were represented by counsel. The FtT produced a decision notice dated 14th December 2021 and provided written reasons on 3rd February 2022. The applicant applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission to bring judicial review proceedings on 13th March 2022. On 23rd August 2022, Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs granted permission to bring judicial review proceedings of the FtT’s 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
![[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)