![[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The 2012 Scheme
The 2012 Scheme
The Applicantmade his claim for criminal injuries compensation for domestic abuse on 4 October 2019. The claim related to a period of abuse from around December 2014 and April/May 2016.
That abuse included being kicked in the chest in December 2014 and regularly pushed in 2014 or 2015, being punched in the face and attacked with an iron pole when in Israel, being hit and having his hair pulled, as well as other assaults and incidents including in France and the USA through 2015. His partner denied the assaults and there was never a prosecution.
Given that “relevant place” in the 2012 Scheme generally means Great Britain (see paragraph 8), no compensation could be awarded for any abuse in Israel, France or the USA.
In this case, the application was made 3½ years after the latest date of the end of the abuse and was therefore at least 1½ years out of time.
By virtue of s.89, there is no power to extend time unless both of the criteria in it are met. That is, to have any power to extend time, the Tribunal must be satisfied both that
due to exceptional circumstances the Applicant could not have applied earlier; and
the evidence presented with the application means that it can be determined without further extensive enquiries.
- 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