[2025] UKUT 218 (AAC)

On 23 December 2023, WS appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”). His appeal was heard as a CVP video hearing by an FTT on 22 March 2024. The FTT refused WS’s appeal. It decided that applying the strict criteria of the 2012 Scheme, WS could reasonably practicably have submitted an application for compensation during the two-year period after the incident. The FTT decided there were no exceptional circumstances applicable to WS to prevent him from applying within that time period. The FTT therefore decided the time for WS to make his application should not be extended under paragraph 89(a) of the 2012 Scheme.

The FTT provided written reasons for its decision on 04 June 2024. The FTT wrote that WS explained at the hearing that he spoke to a police officer at the time of the incident but was not given any information about making a criminal injuries compensation claim. WS was aware the person who assaulted him had not been caught. He was waiting to hear from police about whether the person had been caught and if he would be required to identify them. WS told the FTT he had never been advised the criminal investigation had closed.

The FTT wrote that WS told it he did not know about the 2012 Scheme and believed that any compensation was part of the court process. WS believed he had to wait for the outcome of that process before he could apply for compensation. The FTT wrote that WS told it that he spoke to another police officer in November 2022, who advised WS he should have applied for criminal injuries compensation, and WS applied for it straight away. The FTT recorded WS as giving evidence that if he had known about the 2012 Scheme earlier, he would have applied for compensation earlier.

The FTT’s written reasons refer to WS’s ability to run a pub before the incident, concluding that it indicated he could manage his own affairs and business affairs to an acceptable standard. The FTT concluded this indicated that WS had adequate planning, organisational and communication skills.

The FTT decided WS did not sustain any significant head injury in the incident and remained able to carry out normal day to day activities after the incident. The FTT acknowledged WS developed some alcohol and mental health problems but assessed that he was able to engage with services, including medical and housing services. At paragraph 38 of its written reasons, the FTT recorded WS was able to apply for state benefits and to comply with requirements to maintain entitlement to them. The FTT referred to the fact WS had successfully completed drug and alcohol addiction treatment and was discharged from the service in June 2021. The FTT recorded that WS was able to socialise with friends (referring to page 216 of the FTT appeal bundle).

The FTT wrote that WS’s own evidence was that he could have submitted an application to CICA earlier than he did and would have done so, had he known about the 2012 Scheme. At paragraph 42 of its written reasons, the FTT stated that ignorance of the CICA Scheme is a relevant factor, but it is not necessarily considered to be an exceptional reason.

The FTT concluded the overall evidential picture was that WS had the ability to research the availability of criminal injuries compensation and to submit an application to CICA earlier than he did. It decided that the body of evidence did not support WS’s evidence that there were exceptional circumstances preventing him applying for criminal injuries compensation earlier than he did.