[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

The hearing before the Tribunal took place on 9 November 2022. Evidence was given by the Applicant and he was cross-examined by a representative from CICA.

The Applicant gave evidence that he felt ashamed, unsupported and traumatised after his interview with the police. That was because he felt that the police did not take him seriously as a male victim of domestic abuse. He was neither aware that he was undergoing domestic abuse, nor that he could apply for compensation for domestic abuse. He felt that domestic abuse websites were geared towards women as victims, not men. This fortified his feelings of shame.

He first spoke to Victim Support in April 2016. He was persuaded to report the matter to Victim Support upon the suggestion of his therapist. What made him go to the police in 2016 was speaking with friends and speaking to Mankind. He confirmed that he had heard about compensation scheme from the stabbing incident. He said that he would have probably submitted the application sooner than he did had he been aware that domestic abuse was a crime and that compensation would be covered.

He confirmed that during May 2016 his former girlfriend continued to make aggressive phone calls and threatening behaviour. He became aware that the abuse was a criminal offence in October 2019. He also stated that the reason he attended the police was as a support agency for going through trauma. Upon disclosing the domestic violence to his GP, he was advised to contact Victim Support.

CICA submitted that the relationship ended in April 2016 and the Applicant had made disclosures to Victim Support, his GP, friends and to the police. It was submitted that he was able to investigate, pursue and complete an application. There were no mitigating factors to render this matter exceptional. Further, he could not contend for a disabling mental injury given that the psychologist’s report adduced was in respect of the stabbing. Further extensive enquiries would be required in respect of any disabling mental injury in respect of the physical aspect of the abuse.

The Applicant submitted that knowledge of the Scheme should not be conflated with knowledge that he was the victim of a crime. He felt guilt and shame as a result of the abuse and only truly realised he had been the victim of a crime after speaking with Mankind. His trauma was a reason for delaying disclosure of the abuse to CICA. Further, the physical abuse (including the swinging of the iron ball) would constitute serious abuse within the meaning of the tariff.

The Tribunal made the following relevant findings of fact. It accepted the history of Applicant’s abuse and suggested that the end date of the abuse was unclear, but was roughly between January and May 2016. The domestic abuse was reported to the police in August 2016. The Applicant knew that he was a victim of a crime of violence when it was reported to the police. He had access to a copy of the 2012 Scheme and legal advice at the time of the stabbing claim. There was little to prevent him from making a claim for domestic violence as a separate claim to the stabbing claim. The only way he would qualify for an award of compensation would be if there was a further mental injury attributable to the domestic abuse. The mental injury would require a considerable amount of additional evidence from a consultant psychiatrist to separate the pre-existing mental ill-health arising out of the stabbing claim from the domestic abuse claim.

Accordingly, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant had exceptional circumstances. Even if there were exceptional circumstances, further extensive enquiries would be necessary. The appeal was therefore dismissed.