Error as to evidence of poor mental health after the assault
Error as to evidence of poor mental health after the assault
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in failing to take into account, or to give adequate weight to, evidence of poor mental health after the start of the abuse and after the assault which had caused the scar.
The evidence before the First-tier Tribunal included medical notes entries for dates after the start (on 9 May 2020) of the abuse (I have also included one entry not from the medical notes: item (5) below) (Footnote: 1)—
7 June 2020: attended Emergency Department (ED), poisoning, mixed overdose, pages A10, A12, C121 and C252.
26 July 2020: attended ED, paracetamol overdose, page A16. Paracetamol overdose with suicidal intent, pages A17 and C142.
4 August 2020: attended ED, mental health. Query overdose (turned out had hidden paracetamol in room to take later), pages A20 and C157.
22 September 2020: attended ED, self-harm, drinking bleach, page A28. Diagnosis One: Toxicology. Poisoning, page A30. Admitted to ward for further psychiatric assessment, pages A30, A31, C169 and C171. The psychiatric liaison report for this ED attendance said: “Mum reported that she has noticed a deterioration in [Ms W’s] mood over recent months and feels that this coincides with her starting a relationship with a boy called […] in Feb 2020”, pages C5 to C7.
26 September 2020, mother’s handwritten note on CIC application form: “26/9/20 [Ms W] brought home by police found Climbing trainline wall to live track with train due. This was cause she seen her ex abuser in a local pub so she left friends and headed to train line telling no one”, page A9. (This was not a medical notes entry.)
14 March 2021: attended ED, overdose 26x10mg of query propranolol, page A32. “Took with intention to end life”, page A32 (and handwritten on this letter: “Contacted by ex this night resulted in overdose”). Admitted to ward, page A35. GP notes page C43 say propranolol but a few lines later also paracetamol, not clear why latter. Also page C181.
2 July 2021: superficial cuts to wrists, GP notes, page C46.
22 August 2022 (two months and 20 days after birth of baby): home visit by specialist nurse practitioner: “[Ms W] calm, welcoming and good eye contact given throughout visit. No concerns regarding [Ms W’s] mental health noted today, she reports that she has no concenrs [sic] regarding this at present”, GP notes, page C235.
29 November 2022: “feels mood low worsening over the last few weeks and struggling to pick herself up. Was out and saw her ex [redacted] who had previously assaulted her, he approached her. Feels this has triggered low mood. … Feels low and lethargic. Avoiding going out again. … Increase Sertraline to 100mg”, GP notes, page C238.
8 December 2022: “[Ms W] happy for me to talk to Mum – has anxiety and worse on phone”, GP notes, page C240.
13 December 2022: “Remains anxious at times but improving. No suicidal ideation, managing well day to day”, GP notes, page C240.
The First-tier Tribunal found that—
“iv) Miss [W] had taken and passed her driving test after the assault, she has her own car and can drive independently with herself and her baby” (paragraph 32).
This finding as to positive matters obtaining after the assault erred in law by leaving out material negative matters. First, it left out of account the evidence that, after the start of the abuse, Ms W took two overdoses and, on a third occasion, attended the Emergency Department for her mental health (paragraph 26(1) to (3) above). Second, the finding also left out of account the evidence that, after the last of the assaults, Ms W drank bleach, was found by police climbing the wall to the train tracks after seeing her ex, took a further overdose and cut herself (paragraph 26(4) to (7) above), and that, after the 22 August 2022 entry two months and 20 days after her baby was born (paragraph 26(8) above), Ms W’s mental health appeared to have deteriorated again: paragraph 26(9) to (11) above.
The First-tier Tribunal also found that—
“v) the GP records show that her mental health improved once pregnant and she has remained stable” (paragraph 32).
This finding too erred in leaving out of account the evidence that Ms W’s mental health did not remain stable but deteriorated again. Superficial cuts to her wrists were recorded on 2 July 2021. There was then the 22 August 2022 GP entry which recorded of a home visit that “[Ms W] calm, welcoming and good eye contact given throughout visit. No concerns regarding [Ms W’s] mental health noted today, she reports that she has no concenrs [sic] regarding this at present”. But after that entry, there were three further entries showing a deterioration as compared with the 22 August 2022 entry: on 29 November, 8 December and 13 December 2022. These last three entries matter because the First-tier Tribunal made an award for disabling mental injury up to two years and yet these three entries show poor mental health more than two years after the last date of the abuse which was 9 August 2020.
- Heading
- I allow this judicial review to the extent of remittal
- Introduction
- Factual and procedural background
- Criminal Injuries Compensation application and decisions
- First-tier Tribunal appeal
- Grant of permission to bring judicial review
- Submissions after grant of permission
- Law
- Analysis
- Error as to Social Services’ involvement and input
- Error as to evidence of poor mental health after the assault
- Error as to reason for leaving college
- Ground (4)
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 387 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)