KM v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)
CFP v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
1 August 2023
[2023] UKUT 145 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman was denied compensation for childhood abuse because the law only covers abuse after 1964. The judge agreed that while it seems unfair, the law has always worked this way, and changing it now would be too difficult and expensive.
Key Facts
- •CFP applied for criminal injury compensation for abuse suffered between 1955 and 1962.
- •The application was denied by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) due to paragraph 17 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, which bars claims for injuries sustained before 1 August 1964.
- •CFP argued that the continuing effects of the abuse (chronic PTSD) constituted a criminal injury sustained after 1964, and that paragraph 17 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered whether the '1964 rule' could be departed from or disapplied.
- •The UT considered arguments regarding the interpretation of 'sustained' in paragraph 17 and potential discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention (in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1), based on sex, age, and other status.
Legal Principles
Statutory schemes are interpreted based on the ordinary meaning of the words used, considering the scheme as a whole and its purpose.
R (Colefax) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2014] EWCA Civ 945 at [16-18]
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14
Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 1 Protocol 1
Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with Convention rights.
Human Rights Act 1998, Section 6(1)
Indirect discrimination can occur when a neutral measure disproportionately affects a particular group.
R(SC) v SSWP [2021] UKSC 26
A low intensity of review is generally appropriate for judgments of social and economic policy, unless manifestly without reasonable foundation.
R(SC) v SSWP [2021] UKSC 26
Outcomes
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
The UT found that the FTT did not err in law. The '1964 rule' in paragraph 17 was objectively and reasonably justified, given the long-standing policy of prospective-only criminal injury compensation schemes since 1964. The UT also found no prima facie case of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex or age.
Similar Cases
SH v The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)
JA, R (on the application of) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (Criminal Injuries Compensation)
[2024] UKUT 121 (AAC)
JM v The First-Tier Tribunal & Anor
[2023] UKUT 267 (AAC)
AS v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2024] UKUT 18 (AAC)