JM v The First-Tier Tribunal & Anor
[2023] UKUT 267 (AAC)
JA, R (on the application of) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (Criminal Injuries Compensation)
12 April 2024
[2024] UKUT 121 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman missed the deadline to apply for compensation after a crime. The court said the first hearing didn't fairly consider her situation because she didn't know about the compensation program and had difficulty giving evidence. The case will be heard again by a different judge.
Key Facts
- •Applicant sought compensation from CICA for an incident on June 2, 2011.
- •Application made on April 29, 2016, exceeding the two-year time limit (paragraph 87 of the 2012 Scheme).
- •Applicant argued exceptional circumstances under rule 89 of the 2012 Scheme due to unawareness of the scheme's existence.
- •Previous First-tier Tribunal decision quashed due to legal errors (JR/1290/2019).
- •Current First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found applicant's ignorance of the scheme not a valid defense.
- •FTT also found the evidence insufficient under rule 89(b) due to needing further medical evidence.
- •Judicial review sought on three grounds: FTT's failure to ascertain why applicant was unaware of the scheme; incorrect application of rule 89(b); failure to adequately address applicant's vulnerabilities as a vulnerable adult.
- •CICA consented to judicial review on the third ground but opposed it on the first two.
- •Telephone hearing conducted by the FTT.
Legal Principles
Rule 89 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 allows extension of time limits under exceptional circumstances where the applicant couldn't have applied earlier and the evidence allows determination without extensive further inquiries.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, Rule 89
Ignorance of the law is not an automatic defense for delay, but the reason for ignorance is relevant to determining whether exceptional circumstances exist under rule 89(a).
MM v CICA [2018] CSOH 63; [2018] SLT 843, GS v FTT (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2013] UKUT 628 (AAC)
First-tier Tribunals must properly ascertain the vulnerabilities of vulnerable adults and address them appropriately, particularly in telephone hearings, as per Practice Direction: First-Tier and Upper Tribunal - Child, Vulnerable and Sensitive Witnesses and case law such as R(NL) v FtT & CICA [2021] UKUT 158 (AAC).
R (NL) v First-tier Tribunal and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2021] UKUT 158 (AAC), RT v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 207 (AAC)
Outcomes
Judicial review granted.
The FTT erred in law by failing to adequately address the applicant's vulnerabilities as a vulnerable adult, particularly given the telephone hearing format.
FTT's decision quashed.
The FTT failed to properly consider the reasons for the applicant's ignorance of the scheme's existence in relation to rule 89(a).
Appeal remitted to a freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal for redetermination.
The FTT's legal errors necessitate a fresh hearing to ensure compliance with the relevant legal principles and allow full consideration of the evidence.
Similar Cases
SH v The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)
AS v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2024] UKUT 18 (AAC)
CFP v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2023] UKUT 145 (AAC)
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, R (on the application of) v the First-tier Tribunal
[2024] UKUT 3 (AAC)