![[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Error in failing adequately to take into account, and in failing to give sufficient weight to, evidence that Ms H left school at 13 and then spent the rest of the time in her bedroom
Error in failing adequately to take into account, and in failing to give sufficient weight to, evidence that Ms H left school at 13 and then spent the rest of the time in her bedroom
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in failing adequately to take into account, and in failing to give sufficient weight to, the written and oral evidence that Ms H had left school at 13 and had then spent the rest of the time in her bedroom. The First-tier Tribunal also erred in law in deflecting her from expanding on that in oral evidence.
Ms H had said in her written statement (page A47, third and fifth paragraphs)—
“I didn’t receive any further schooling after the age of 13
[…]
Before the trauma, I was outgoing and had friends. However, after it happened, I withdrew from the world and spent most of my time in my room. I had no friends, couldn’t complete school, never worked, and constantly felt guilty. I would go for months without talking to anyone, including my nan. I had panic attacks and felt a sense of dread. All of these experiences left me feeling depressed, confused, and angry. I struggled with conflicting emotions because I loved and missed my grandad, who was the perpetrator of the trauma. I would self-harm, have nightmares, and experience flashbacks.”.
In addition, the First-tier Tribunal oral proceedings included the following exchange (my underlining)—
“Dr – Did you do, second question, did you do your GCSEs? Did you try?
Ms H – No, I didn’t. I’ve been [out of] schooling since the age of 13. I attempted to go to high school. I didn’t do very well. I spent a lot of time in isolation. So then a specialist provision was found for me called the […..] Centre in […]. I attended there for about nine months, but they said they couldn’t meet my needs. And then I was just left in limbo. I didn’t have anywhere to go.
Dr – Right.
Ms H – I just spent the rest of the time in my bedroom.
Dr – And…Thank you. Yeah, that’s fine. I don’t want to trouble you with unpleasant things.
Ms H – No, no.
Dr – You know, that’s not the purpose of this. So you didn’t attempt GCSEs. So what you said later on was, did you go to college at any time?
Ms H – I attempted to try and enrol in college, but I just couldn’t. I just couldn’t manage. I just didn’t want to be around people. I don’t want to be around people still.”.
Not only did the First-tier Tribunal not give weight to the evidence that Ms H had left school at 13 and then spent the rest of the time in her bedroom, but also the tribunal deflected her – see the underlined text – from saying more in oral evidence. Leaving school at 13 and spending the rest of the time in her bedroom was relevant to the effect the abuse had had on Ms H in the years closely following the abuse. Moreover, had the First-tier Tribunal not deflected her from saying more, that tribunal might well have heard more detail about that effect. That effect in turn laid the foundation for the abuse’s continuing effect in later years.
In any event, more detail was in Ms H’s written statement in the fifth paragraph on page A57, to which the tribunal did not give sufficient weight.
- Heading
- I allow this judicial review to the extent of remittal
- Introduction
- Factual and procedural background
- First-tier Tribunal appeal
- Grant of permission to bring judicial review
- Submissions after grant of permission
- Law
- Analysis
- Error by misquoting the test in Note 2 of the Tariff to the scheme and by appearing to assume that, without a substantial adverse impact on Ms H’s day-to-day activities, the DMI was present but not pe
- Error in failing to seek a further report from Dr Holt on the issues on which the First-tier Tribunal found Dr Holt’s report lacking
- Error in failing to find that Dr Holt did report sufficiently on functioning
- Error in failing to find that Dr Holt’s report was evidence of permanence
- Error in failing to take sufficient account of, and to give sufficient weight to, Dr Alachkar’s first two reports
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to evidence from years before Ms H made her CIC claim that showed a lack of day-to-day functioning
- Error in failing adequately to take into account, and in failing to give sufficient weight to, evidence that Ms H left school at 13 and then spent the rest of the time in her bedroom
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to the statement of Ms H’s partner
- Error in placing too much weight on the contraceptive implant
- Error in failing to ask Ms H why she has the contraceptive implant
- Error in placing too much weight on the lack of GP entries as to sexual dysfunction
- Error in mischaracterising Ms H’s evidence as to her sexual relationship with her partner and impliedly inferring that she was lying about that relationship
- Error in making a finding not supported by the evidence as to the reason for Ms H stopping driving immediately after passing the driving test
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to Ms H’s reminder to the tribunal that she had grown up at her Nana’s
- Conclusions