[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

This case concerns a late application for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (“the 2012 Scheme” or “the Scheme”) and in particular the power to extend time under paragraphs 89(a) and (b) thereof. The Applicant knew of the existence of the Scheme because he had made a previous claim under it for a separate incident (stabbing), but argued that he did not know that the conduct later complained of (domestic abuse) was a crime and/or that it was conduct for which compensation could be claimed. The judgment considers whether on the facts of this case those matters may be taken into account in deciding whether, due to exceptional circumstances, the applicant could not have applied earlier for compensation. The judgment also considers under the second limb of paragraph 89 whetherevidence presented in support of the application could be determined without further extensive enquiries.

The Applicant brings judicial review proceedings, with my permission, against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which it made on 9 November 2022 after an oral hearing by telephone on that day. The Tribunal produced its summary of reasons for its decision on the same day and its statement of reasons on 29 December 2022. The applicant applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission to bring judicial review proceedings in form JRC1 on 6 February 2023. Upper Tribunal Perez refused the applicant permission to bring judicial review proceedings on 16 May 2023.

The Applicant sought an oral renewal of his application in time on 3 July 2023 (the refusal of permission having been issued on 22 June 2023). I initially directed an oral hearing of the renewed application for permission to appeal on 3 July 2023 and the case was due to be heard on the morning of 13 September 2023.

However, it was brought to my attention that on 20 July 2023 Upper Tribunal Judge Wright had granted permission to appeal in the case of R(JA)v (1) First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (2) CICA [2024] UKUT 121 (AAC), UA-2022-000653-CIC (“JA”).That case was to consider the test for extending time for making application to CICA under rule 89(a) of the 2012 Scheme (viz. whether due to exceptional circumstances the claim could not have been made earlier). It would consider the relevance of the applicant being ignorant of there being any criminal injuries compensation scheme, whether ignorance of the law was no excuse in that context and whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in ruling out from consideration why the applicant was ignorant of the law and consequently focusing on what she ought to have known. The appeal in JA was unlikely to be decided before 13 September 2023.

Accordingly, on 29 August 2023 I granted the Applicant permission to bring judicial review proceedings, but stayed the matter until JA had been decided.

The decision in JA was authorised for issue by Judge Wright on 12 April 2024. On 15 May 2024 I lifted the stay imposed on the proceedings, and made further directions for the conduct of the appeal. On 11 December 2024 I made further directions for the hearing of the appeal and made an anonymity order in favour of the Applicant (which was not opposed by CICA).

On 8 May 2025 I heard the applicant’s judicial review. The Applicant was represented by Mr Anirudh Mandagere and CICA by Mr Robert Moretto, both of counsel, to whom I am indebted for their able written and oral submissions. I reserved my decision. Although I have read Judge Perez’s refusal of permission, that was only by way of background and I have in effect put her decision to one side and considered the matter afresh in the light of the parties’ oral and written submissions, albeit that I have reached the same conclusion.