R (SH) v FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL [2010] UKUT 186
FACTS:-
The Applicant had been raped at the age of 19 in August 2002, and then sustained injuries when she jumped from a window to escape her attacker. In May 2003, she made a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and when she made her application, she ticked the box marked “NO” when she was asked the question “Have you been, or do you expect to be off work or similarly incapacitated for more than 28 full weeks as a result of the injury?” She was offered compensation at £14,450 but applied for a review on the grounds that she would have done better in life (including finding a job) had it not been for this incident. The award was then reduced to £3,612.50 on account of the Applicant’s criminal convictions. She then appealed to the First Tier Tribunal, who confirmed the previous decision of the CICA. She applied to judicially review this decision.
JUDGMENT:-
Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland said that permission had not been granted to review the Tribunal’s assessment of the tariff award. The issue centered around the FTT’s decision to reduced the award. The first of those offences had not been committed until November 2005, and other offences had not been committed until May 2006. Rowland J referred to the case of R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thomas [1995] PIQR 99 where it was held that notwithstanding that an application had been made by an applicant of good character, the Board was entitled to take into account his criminal convictions acquired since the application was made, and regardless of the delay in determining this application.
Rowland J said that despite what was said in Thomas, the CICA points system (for determining the effect of criminal convictions on an award) had the effect that in some instances, the number of points accumulated depended on how long before the relevant crime of violence an offence was committed. He did not see why in principle, the First Tier Tribunal should not be entitled to have regard to any very substantial period of time that had elapsed either between the relevant crime of violence and the commission of a subsequent offence or between the date on which an offence was committed and the date of a decision awarding compensation. He accepted that the FTT was not bound to reach a different conclusion in this case from the one it did reach or even to consider the delay in this case significant. He also accepted that it was not bound to consider in its reasons all arguments that might have been made to it but were not. Accordingly Rowland J would not grant judicial review on this ground.
He did however consider that the FTT erred in law in considering whether to make an award in respect of loss of earnings or loss of earnings capacity. An unrepresented Applicant was not to be expected to plead her case like a lawyer, but her grounds of appeal made it abundantly clear that the Claimant thought that the award was too low, because amongst other reasons, she had not been made an award of loss of earnings. She should have been given the opportunity to produce the necessary evidence. Therefore Rowland J would quash the decision of the FTT and remit the case for re-hearing.
FACTS:-
The Applicant had been raped at the age of 19 in August 2002, and then sustained injuries when she jumped from a window to escape her attacker. In May 2003, she made a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and when she made her application, she ticked the box marked “NO” when she was asked the question “Have you been, or do you expect to be off work or similarly incapacitated for more than 28 full weeks as a result of the injury?” She was offered compensation at £14,450 but applied for a review on the grounds that she would have done better in life (including finding a job) had it not been for this incident. The award was then reduced to £3,612.50 on account of the Applicant’s criminal convictions. She then appealed to the First Tier Tribunal, who confirmed the previous decision of the CICA. She applied to judicially review this decision.
JUDGMENT:-
Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland said that permission had not been granted to review the Tribunal’s assessment of the tariff award. The issue centered around the FTT’s decision to reduced the award. The first of those offences had not been committed until November 2005, and other offences had not been committed until May 2006. Rowland J referred to the case of R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thomas [1995] PIQR 99 where it was held that notwithstanding that an application had been made by an applicant of good character, the Board was entitled to take into account his criminal convictions acquired since the application was made, and regardless of the delay in determining this application.
Rowland J said that despite what was said in Thomas, the CICA points system (for determining the effect of criminal convictions on an award) had the effect that in some instances, the number of points accumulated depended on how long before the relevant crime of violence an offence was committed. He did not see why in principle, the First Tier Tribunal should not be entitled to have regard to any very substantial period of time that had elapsed either between the relevant crime of violence and the commission of a subsequent offence or between the date on which an offence was committed and the date of a decision awarding compensation. He accepted that the FTT was not bound to reach a different conclusion in this case from the one it did reach or even to consider the delay in this case significant. He also accepted that it was not bound to consider in its reasons all arguments that might have been made to it but were not. Accordingly Rowland J would not grant judicial review on this ground.
He did however consider that the FTT erred in law in considering whether to make an award in respect of loss of earnings or loss of earnings capacity. An unrepresented Applicant was not to be expected to plead her case like a lawyer, but her grounds of appeal made it abundantly clear that the Claimant thought that the award was too low, because amongst other reasons, she had not been made an award of loss of earnings. She should have been given the opportunity to produce the necessary evidence. Therefore Rowland J would quash the decision of the FTT and remit the case for re-hearing.