![[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Third stage: Difference in treatment
Third stage: Difference in treatment
The applicant submitted there had been a difference in her treatment based on two alternative arguments before the FtT depending on which status was relied on.
Firstly regarding “other status” as a victim of CSA she argued the blanket exclusionary rule was discriminatory on the basis it fails to treat victims of CSA differently from victims of other types of crime with unspent convictions. She submitted this is contrary to Articles 3 and 8 of ECHR. This argument is advanced in ground two.
The FtT concluded victims of CSA were not entitled to preferential treatment (paragraph 60) in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in A&B in particular [71] where Lord Lloyd-Jones states;
- 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