[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

This ground is that the Tribunal made irrational findings. It adds nothing of substance to ground 1. It is based, as set out above, on a misinterpretation of the Tribunal’s decision. In particular, it is uncontroversial that the Applicant did have legal advice in the course of his original appeal to the Tribunal in respect of the stabbing incident. The point made by the Tribunal is that the fact that he had legal advice in respect of his stabbing claim shows that he could have had legal advice in respect of his abuse claim.

Similarly, in respect of having a copy of the Scheme, plainly he had access to a copy of the Scheme: he knew about the Scheme, he made an application under it and could easily have found out about the detail of the Scheme if he had wished to so do.

In any event, none of the above detracts from the facts, as set out above, that whether he actually had legal advice from 2016 or a copy of the Scheme in 2016, is immaterial, and/or the outcome would have been highly likely to have been the same. That is because, regardless of whether he did or did not, there could not have been exceptional circumstances which would have permitted an extension of time given that (a) he knew about the Scheme to compensate victims of crime, (b) had made an application under the Scheme, and (c) his evidence that the reason he did not make his application sooner was because he did not know he was the victim of a crime was rationally rejected.