A woman appealed a decision denying her full compensation for injuries from domestic abuse. A higher court ruled the initial decision-makers missed important medical evidence about her back injury. The case will be retried with a focus on that evidence.
Key Facts
- •Miss S applied for criminal injuries compensation for domestic violence from 2006 to 2016.
- •CICA initially awarded compensation, but this was revised on review.
- •Miss S appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), which upheld CICA's decision.
- •Miss S applied for judicial review of the FTT's decision.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) granted permission for judicial review.
- •The UT found the FTT erred in law by failing to consider pre-RTA medical records showing back pain and failing to explain why this pain wasn't linked to domestic violence.
- •The UT quashed the FTT's decision and remitted the case for a rehearing.
Legal Principles
Judicial review can be granted if a tribunal errs in law.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Section 16(1) and (3C) to (3G)
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 outlines eligibility criteria for injury payments, including loss of earnings payments.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012
Outcomes
The UT allowed the judicial review and quashed the FTT's decision.
The FTT failed to properly consider medical evidence relating to Miss S's back pain and its potential connection to the domestic abuse.
The case was remitted to the FTT for a rehearing.
The FTT needs to reconsider the evidence, potentially taking additional evidence, in light of the UT's findings.