HUTTON V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY [2011] EWCA 1560 (QB)
FACTS:-
Mr Hutton’s father was killed in 1966 and his murderer convicted. At that time, the Applicant was a baby. His mother was not mentally well enough to pursue a claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The Applicant then made a claim to the CICA in 2008 on his behalf, and his sister’s and his mother’s behalf. This was rejected on the grounds that it was out of time pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Scheme, which set a two year limit. The CICA also said that because the crime of violence had occurred so long ago, they could not get hold of the police file. In fact the Applicant had obtained the police file, and it was his difficulty in getting hold of the underlying material that had been in large part responsible for the delay.
The Applicant applied for a review of that decision, which was refused and then appealed to the First Tier Tribunal where again his application was refused by Judge Thomas Ward on the grounds that there were no particular circumstances within paragraph 18 to entitle him to waive the time limit and no explanation had been given for the failure to make the application sooner.
The Applicant now applied for permission to judicially review that decision.
Both the judges on paper and at the oral hearing (Judges Bano and Jacobs) had been sympathetic to Mr Hutton’s application. Judge Bano accepted that the First Tier Tribunal had been wrong to say that there were no relevant particular circumstances in the case. It had been accepted that until Mr Hutton turned 21, there could be no difficulty about extending time until that time. Judge Bano also said that the tribunal ought to have taken into account that the complete police file was available, and that there had never been any doubt about the crime of violence taking place. However Judge Bano felt that Mr Hutton had not given a satisfactory explanation for not making a claim under the scheme until 22 years after he obtained his majority. Judge Edwards said that he accepted Mr Hutton’s evidence, and that he would have given permission to apply for judicial review if he could properly do so. However he found that the First Tier Tribunal could not have properly waived the time limit in the circumstances of the case. In relation to the information surrounding his father’s death, he said that it was not necessary for Mr Hutton to track down the information in order to make his claim.
JUDGMENT:-
Lord Justice Rix said that he was not sure why the age of 21 was important in this case. He did have difficulty with the reasoning of Judge Edwards. As he understood the rules, the Applicant had to make out the case for the application for compensation that he was making, at any rate to some first ground base. It seemed reasonably arguable, and that there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, that if all of the evidence of Mr Hutton was accepted, then it might be reasonable and in the interests of justice to allow the case to go forward with a waiver of the two year time limit. Therefore permission would be given to the Applicant to apply for permission to apply for judicial review to the Court of Appeal. Rix LJ said that there should be a rolled up hearing in the Court of Appeal dealing with permission for judicial review, and for judicial review within the Court of Appeal.
FACTS:-
Mr Hutton’s father was killed in 1966 and his murderer convicted. At that time, the Applicant was a baby. His mother was not mentally well enough to pursue a claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The Applicant then made a claim to the CICA in 2008 on his behalf, and his sister’s and his mother’s behalf. This was rejected on the grounds that it was out of time pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Scheme, which set a two year limit. The CICA also said that because the crime of violence had occurred so long ago, they could not get hold of the police file. In fact the Applicant had obtained the police file, and it was his difficulty in getting hold of the underlying material that had been in large part responsible for the delay.
The Applicant applied for a review of that decision, which was refused and then appealed to the First Tier Tribunal where again his application was refused by Judge Thomas Ward on the grounds that there were no particular circumstances within paragraph 18 to entitle him to waive the time limit and no explanation had been given for the failure to make the application sooner.
The Applicant now applied for permission to judicially review that decision.
Both the judges on paper and at the oral hearing (Judges Bano and Jacobs) had been sympathetic to Mr Hutton’s application. Judge Bano accepted that the First Tier Tribunal had been wrong to say that there were no relevant particular circumstances in the case. It had been accepted that until Mr Hutton turned 21, there could be no difficulty about extending time until that time. Judge Bano also said that the tribunal ought to have taken into account that the complete police file was available, and that there had never been any doubt about the crime of violence taking place. However Judge Bano felt that Mr Hutton had not given a satisfactory explanation for not making a claim under the scheme until 22 years after he obtained his majority. Judge Edwards said that he accepted Mr Hutton’s evidence, and that he would have given permission to apply for judicial review if he could properly do so. However he found that the First Tier Tribunal could not have properly waived the time limit in the circumstances of the case. In relation to the information surrounding his father’s death, he said that it was not necessary for Mr Hutton to track down the information in order to make his claim.
JUDGMENT:-
Lord Justice Rix said that he was not sure why the age of 21 was important in this case. He did have difficulty with the reasoning of Judge Edwards. As he understood the rules, the Applicant had to make out the case for the application for compensation that he was making, at any rate to some first ground base. It seemed reasonably arguable, and that there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, that if all of the evidence of Mr Hutton was accepted, then it might be reasonable and in the interests of justice to allow the case to go forward with a waiver of the two year time limit. Therefore permission would be given to the Applicant to apply for permission to apply for judicial review to the Court of Appeal. Rix LJ said that there should be a rolled up hearing in the Court of Appeal dealing with permission for judicial review, and for judicial review within the Court of Appeal.