Peiris, R (on the application of) v First-Tier Tribunal & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 1527
ZX, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority & Anor
3 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1703 (Admin)
High Court
A mother cared for her son after he was severely injured in a violent crime. He later died from his injuries. She sued because the government's compensation scheme didn't pay her for her care, unlike if he'd died from a different cause. The court said the scheme was fair because it focuses on helping victims and their dependents who rely on them financially, and the government has a right to decide how to use limited funds.
Key Facts
- •YX, the Claimant's son, died from a gunshot wound sustained in a violent crime.
- •The Claimant sought judicial review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, arguing it irrationally and discriminatorily excluded non-dependent family carers from claiming special expenses after the victim's death from the violent crime.
- •The Scheme allows claims for special expenses by dependents if the victim dies from an unrelated cause.
- •The Claimant claimed £75,510 for gratuitous care provided and other expenses.
- •YX received state-funded care, and the Defendant argued that no award would have been payable even if the Claimant were eligible.
Legal Principles
Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights.
Article 14 ECHR
Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires legislation to be interpreted compatibly with Convention rights.
Section 3, Human Rights Act 1998
Judicial review of a decision must be justified in terms of proportionality and a legitimate aim.
JT v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2019] 1 WLR 1313
In Article 14 claims, four questions must be considered: (1) does the treatment fall within a Convention right; (2) is the treatment based on 'status'; (3) is the claimant's situation analogous to someone treated differently; (4) is the difference justified?
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] 3 WLR 1831
A wide margin of appreciation is given to Parliament in decisions relating to economic or social policy.
Various Supreme Court Cases (cited in 144)
Claims for damages must be particularised in the pleadings.
Court's own ruling
Outcomes
Claim for judicial review dismissed.
The court found the Scheme's distinction between dependents and non-dependents in cases of death from related or unrelated causes to be objectively justified, proportionate, and not irrational, given the limited resources of the scheme and its aims.
Article 14 ECHR claim failed.
The court found that the claimant's status as a carer for a deceased victim of crime, or as a non-dependent relative, did not meet the requirements of Article 14 because her situation wasn't analogous to the comparators, and the difference in treatment was justified.
Irrationality claim failed.
The court found that the Scheme's provisions were rational given the aims of the scheme and the wide margin of appreciation afforded to Parliament and the executive in making social and economic policy decisions.
Similar Cases
Dominic Stephenson v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2024] UKUT 84 (AAC)
KM v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, R (on the application of) v the First-tier Tribunal
[2024] UKUT 3 (AAC)
CFP v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2023] UKUT 145 (AAC)