[2025] UKUT 218 (AAC)

CICA, as the interested party to these proceedings, filed a response dated 26 November 2024. It supports the application for judicial review on the third ground (see paragraph 14(c) above) but does not support the other grounds. CICA agrees to the Upper Tribunal quashing the FTT’s decision and remitting WS’s appeal to a fresh Tribunal for a re-hearing.

In relation to the ground at paragraph 14(c) above, CICA submits that the FTT assessed WS’s health did not prevent him applying for compensation during the two-year period and it was entitled to do so. CICA submits, however, that the FTT’s written reasons do not clearly address why WS remained unaware of the 2012 Scheme.

CICA argues that it was reasonable for the FTT to rely on any entries in WS’s medical records that indicated he could deal directly with his GP. CICA argues, however, that the approach indicated in R(JA) and in MM v CICA [2018] CSOH 63 (“MM”) means the FTT should have explored how WS was managing his wider circumstances. This would have let the FTT understand whether WS was dealing with benefits and the council personally, or someone was doing it on his behalf.

CICA argues that the FTT’s written reasons do not demonstrate that it considered WS’s wider circumstances, for example, whether (as WS submitted to me at the hearing on 26 September 2024), his daughter helped him with actions like liaising with the council for benefits.

CICA make the wider point that WS told the FTT that if he had been aware of the 2012 Scheme, he would have been able to make his application for compensation earlier. CICA argue that this implies WS had access to, and could engage with, online services during the period from 2019 to 2021 to submit an application for compensation. CICA argue that this means that when the next Tribunal explores WS’s broader circumstances, it may still decide they did not prevent him applying to CICA in time. CICA acknowledges, however, that this case needs to be remitted to the Tribunal so that it can consider this issue and make findings of fact about it.

Although the First-tier Tribunal is the Respondent to this matter, the convention is that it does not take part in judicial review proceedings before the Upper Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal has therefore not provided any response to my decision granting permission to bring judicial review proceedings.

WS has written to the Upper Tribunal and provided observations by email. WS states that he was in a bad place during the two-year period and after it, leaning on his daughter to deal with daily things, including filling in benefit and council forms. WS submits that both he and his daughter were unaware of the rules for claiming criminal injuries compensation and he had no victim support.