![[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Factual and procedural background
Factual and procedural background
Application for compensation
Ms H was sexually abused from the age of 5 by her maternal grandmother’s male partner. CICA accepted that and so did the First-tier Tribunal. On 13 September 2019, Ms H claimed criminal injuries compensation for that abuse. The applicable scheme is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012.
In a decision communicated by letter dated 26 November 2021, CICA refused the claim on the ground of non-cooperation with CICA (page A19).
In a review decision communicated by letter dated 17 March 2023, CICA decided to make an award of £1,500 (page A29). This was for sexual assault child, level B2 x 100%.
- 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