The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, R (on the application of) v the First-tier Tribunal
[2024] UKUT 3 (AAC)
LXR, R (on the application of) v the First-tier Tribunal
16 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 208 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A man was awarded compensation for childhood sexual abuse but not for related mental health issues. He tried to get more money, arguing his condition had changed, but the first court said no. The higher court overturned this, saying the first court misunderstood the rules. Now, the case will be re-examined properly.
Key Facts
- •LXR applied for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) for childhood sexual abuse and abuse while in the RAF.
- •CICA awarded compensation for the sexual abuse but not for the resulting mental injury, finding the RAF incident the primary cause.
- •LXR applied to reopen the child abuse application based on a new report indicating a material change in his medical condition.
- •The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no material change in LXR's medical condition.
- •LXR applied for judicial review of the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of statutory provisions requires considering the context of the section as a whole and the wider context of the relevant group of sections. External aids, such as dictionaries and explanatory notes, play a secondary role.
R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] AC 255
Legislation must be interpreted as a whole. The meaning of a provision derives from the meaning of the concepts employed when considered in the context of each other and of the whole.
Woodling v Secretary of State for Social Services [1984] 1 WLR 448
In the context of reopening applications under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, 'materiality' means the applicant would now qualify for a more favourable award than was made before. 'Condition' in 'medical condition' must be connected to the classification of an injury in the tariff.
Paragraph 115(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, interpreted by the judge
The purposes of the Scheme are part of its context, but they don't justify interpreting 'medical condition' in an overly narrow way.
R (Colefax) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2015] 1 WLR 35
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Williams [2000] PIQR Q339 is not a template or checklist for applying paragraph 115(b), as it uses different language and focuses on different aspects of the analysis.
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Williams [2000] PIQR Q339; Judge's analysis of Williams
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal quashed the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
The First-tier Tribunal misinterpreted paragraph 115(b) of the 2012 Scheme by relying too heavily on dictionary definitions and failing to consider the provision as a whole and its purpose within the scheme. It also incorrectly applied the balance of probabilities.
The matter was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.
To allow the Tribunal to reconsider the application for reopening in light of the correct interpretation of paragraph 115(b).
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)
AS v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
[2024] UKUT 18 (AAC)
JA, R (on the application of) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (Criminal Injuries Compensation)
[2024] UKUT 121 (AAC)