CFP v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2023] UKUT 145 (AAC)
KM v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
31 August 2023
[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman who was abused as a child and later committed a crime was denied compensation because of her criminal record. A court ruled that this wasn't unfair, as the rules about who gets compensation are designed to be fair overall, and there wasn't enough evidence to show that her crime directly resulted from her childhood abuse.
Key Facts
- •KM, the applicant, was a victim of child sexual abuse (CSA) at age 8.
- •KM had an unspent conviction at the time she applied for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).
- •CICA refused her application due to the unspent conviction under the exclusionary rule (paragraph 26 and Annex D of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012).
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) dismissed KM's appeal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in A & B v CICA [2021] UKSC 27.
- •KM applied for judicial review of the FtT's decision.
- •KM argued the exclusionary rule was discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR, read with A1P1, Articles 3 and/or 8.
Legal Principles
Judicial review principles as per the High Court.
Section 15(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the context of Convention rights.
A & B v CICA [2021] UKSC 27
Four-stage test for Article 14 discrimination (from R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions): (i) Ambit of a Convention right; (ii) ‘Status’; (iii) Difference in treatment; (iv) Justification.
R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] 1 WLR 3289 (para 136)
Exclusionary rule in Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, which denies compensation to applicants with unspent convictions.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, paragraph 26 and Annex D
Right to compensation under the Scheme falls within A1P1, and Articles 3 and 8.
JT v CICA [2019] 1 WLR 1313, A & B v CICA [2021] UKSC 27
Outcomes
Application for judicial review dismissed.
The FtT did not err in law. The exclusionary rule's application to KM was not discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR, as it had an objective and reasonable justification.
Similar Cases
SH v The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)
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)
[2024] UKUT 121 (AAC)
AS v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2024] UKUT 18 (AAC)