Key Facts
- •RN, a 12-year-old victim of sexual offences in 2014, applied for compensation under the 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
- •The offences involved online grooming and threats, but no physical contact.
- •RN's claim was rejected by the CICA, the FTT, and the UT, all finding that the offences did not constitute a 'crime of violence' under the Scheme.
- •The appeal focused on whether the offences met the definition of 'crime of violence' under Annex B, paragraph 2(1)(b), (c), or (d).
Legal Principles
Definition of 'crime of violence' under the 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (Annex B, paragraph 2(1)).
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012
Common law definition of assault, including the concept of 'fear of immediate violence'.
R v Constanza [1997] 2 CR App R 492; R v Ireland [1998] AC 147
Definition of sexual assault under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 3
Whether psychiatric injury constitutes 'physical injury' under the Scheme.
R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689; R v Ireland [1998] AC 147
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The UT and FTT erred in applying too narrow an interpretation of 'fear of immediate violence' under Annex B, paragraph 2(1)(c), failing to consider the common law principles established in R v Constanza and R v Ireland. The appellant's evidence supported a finding of threats causing fear of immediate violence, even without specifying the exact form of violence.