![[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No.UA-2023-000130-CIC
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
Between
MF
Applicant
and
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT CHAMBER)
Respondent
and
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY (CICA)
Interested Party
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF A TRIBUNAL
Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEST
Date of hearing: 8 May 2025
Date of decision: 11 June 2025
Representation: Mr Anirudh Mandagere, counsel, for the Applicant
(instructed via Advocate)
Mr Robert Moretto, counsel, for the Interested Party
(instructed by CICA)
ON APPEAL FROM
Tribunal First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Tribunal Case No: CI021/22/00118
Tribunal Hearing Date: 9/11/2022
Summary of Decision Criminal injuries compensation - late application for compensation - paragraphs 89(a) and (b) of Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 - whether knowing of the existence of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but not knowing that the conduct complained of was a crime and/or that it was not conduct for which compensation could be claimed may be taken into account in deciding whether, due to exceptional circumstances, the applicant could not have applied earlier for compensation – whetherevidence presented in support of application could be determined without further extensive enquiries
Keyword Name 70 Criminal injuries compensation
Please note that the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and the Reasons of the Judge follow.
ORDER
Pursuant to rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the applicant in these proceedings.
Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment which may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.
DECISION
- Heading
- Section 1
- The Tribunal’s Decision
- Conclusion
- The 2012 Scheme
- The Applicant’s Submissions
- The Tribunal Hearing
- General Principles
- can the circumstances preventing an earlier application be characterised as exceptional?
- the focus should be on the impact of the error on the decision-making process which the decision-maker undertook to ascertain whether it is highly likely that the decision taken would not have been su
- the Court should (in proper evidence) be given a full accurate and clear explanation of the decision-making process used by the public authority concerned and should not have to depend upon submission
- Grounds of Review
- Ground Two: The Tribunal made findings of fact which were erroneous on the basis they (i) had no evidential basis or (ii) were unreasonable
- Ground Three: Failure to take proper account of the impact of the abuse
- Ground Four: With respect to paragraph 89(b) the Tribunal made a finding of fact which was erroneous on the following bases: (i) it made material errors of fact giving rise to unfairness, (ii) a finding
- Alleged Adequate Alternative Remedy
- Conclusion
- CICA’s Submissions
- The 2012 Scheme
- Paragraph 89(a)
- whether the circumstances are exceptional is a question of fact (at [15])
- in R(JR) v FtT and CICA [2016] JR/1523/2016 at [6] Upper Tribunal Judge Ward suggested that the focus should be on what prevented the applicant applying sooner and then a Tribunal will be able to cons
- in MM v CICA at [33] the Outer House was content to adopt the two-part process formulation in BC , but said
- Lack of knowledge of the 2012 Scheme
- Lack of knowledge of suffering a crime
- Challenging factual decisions
- S.31 (2A) of the SCA 1981 provides that
- Gathercole v Surrey County Council [2021] PTSR 359 (Court of Appeal) at [38-39]
- R (Glatter) v North Herts Valleys CCG [2021] EWHC 12 (Admin) at [96]
- most recently, Bradbury at [74]
- Process/alternative remedy
- Ground 1
- he was able to, and did, make an application under the Scheme
- is not in any way, and cannot be suggested, that that was not put to him
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- the Level B3 award to which he refers requires there to have been (emphasis added) “ intermittent physical assaults resulting in an accumulation of healed wounds, burns or scalds, but with no apprecia
- Conclusion
- Analysis
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- Alternative Remedy
- The Transcript
- Conclusions