![[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Decision of the Supreme Court in A & B v CICA [2021] UKSC 27
The Decision of the Supreme Court in A & B v CICA [2021] UKSC 27
The relevance and applicability of A&B v CICA [2021] UKSC 27 is a key issue in these proceedings. The Supreme Court in that case considered whether the exclusion of victims of human trafficking from compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme by virtue of the exclusionary rule due to the fact they had unspent convictions was unjustifiably discriminatory, in breach of article 14 taken with article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The claims were unanimously dismissed by the Supreme Court who found, inter alia, Article 14 of the ECHR prohibits discrimination only in the context of rights and freedoms set out in the ECHR and approved the four-stage test set out by Lady Hale in R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Shelter Children’s Legal Services intervening) [2019] 1 WLR 3289 (para 136). The four questions which arise in connection with a complaint of discrimination under article 14 ECHR are;
Does the subject matter of the complaint fall within the ambit of one of the substantive convention rights?
Does the ground upon which the complainants have been treated differently from others constitute a “status”?
Have they been treated differently from other people not sharing that status who are similarly situated or, alternatively have they been treated in the same way as other people not sharing that status whose situation is relevantly different from theirs?
Does that difference or similarity in treatment have an objective and reasonable justification, in other words, does it pursue a legitimate aim and do the means employed bear a “reasonable relationship of proportionality” to the aims sought to be realised?
Ultimately the Court decided that there was a difference in treatment between victims of trafficking who have relevant unspent convictions and who are therefore denied compensation, and victims of trafficking who do not have such convictions and are therefore not denied compensation. Nonetheless, the Court concluded this differential treatment was justified in terms of pursuing a legitimate objective and proportionate, being no more intrusive than it needed to be and striking a fair balance between competing interests.
- 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