[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

In its decision the Tribunal made findings of fact that the Applicant had access to a copy of the 2012 Scheme and legal advice at the time of the stabbing claim. These were material to its decision that he would have been “easily able to find out about domestic abuse and its place within the scheme”.

However, the Applicant was not questioned during the hearing about his access to legal advice and his knowledge of the 2012 Scheme. Indeed, these findings of fact were not advanced by CICA. Rather, its submissions were predicated on the basis that the Applicant was “aware” of the Scheme and that he had been well enough to progress and present the stabbing claim up to the appeal stage.

The Applicant did not give evidence as to his access to legal advice during the stabbing claim. His only evidence in relation to the Scheme was that he knew of its existence. He stated that he was informed by the investigating officer that he could claim for compensation for stabbing and applied for it. He was not questioned about whether he had a copy of the rules during the stabbing claim. At no point did the Applicant give evidence as to his knowledge and access to the wider rules outside the scope of the stabbing claim.

The Tribunal made an express finding that the Applicant had access to a copy of the 2012 Scheme. In doing so, it elided his knowledge of the existence of a benefit within the Scheme (i.e. compensation for stabbing) with knowledge of the scope of the rules outside that benefit.

This was not a proper inference for the Tribunal to make:

the Applicant did not have access to legal advice or assistance until 9 July 2020. At the time of his application for the stabbing claim, he was unaware of the wider scope of the rules. He was only aware that the Scheme compensated victims of stabbing.

he was not questioned as to his wider familiarity with the Scheme or the ease with which he could have access a copy of the rules.

the Tribunal went further than stating that the Applicant might reasonably be expected to have had access to a copy of the Scheme. It made an express finding of fact that the Applicant would have had access to a copy without giving him the opportunity to respond.

in rejecting the Applicant’s case on exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal took into account that “he would have had access to a copy of the 2012 scheme at that time and that he had access to legal advice during the course of the appeal”

the Applicant was never questioned about the feasibility of seeking legal advice for the “stabbing claim” and when he obtained that legal advice. The only evidential ground which it had was that he had legal advice and representation during the tribunal hearing of April 2022

the inclusion of the words “at that time” is important. It indicates that the Tribunal goes beyond a finding that the Applicant had the ability to access the 2012 Scheme (which he could have done at any point). It indicates that it found that he had in his possession a copy of the 2012 Scheme.