JT v First-Tier Tribunal  EWCA Civ 1735 pre 1979 law JT was born in 1963. She was the victim of repeated sexual assaults by her step-father between the ages of 5 and 17 and made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority following his conviction in 2012. However, her application was refused under paragraph 19 of the 2012 CICA Scheme, which stated that no compensation would be paid in relation to any crime of violence that occurred before the 1st October 1979 "if, at the time of the incident giving rise to that injury, the applicant and the assailant were living together as members of the same family." Full report here.
R (LM) v FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL  UKUT 179 These were two linked cases brought under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001. The numbers of the cases were JR/1406/2009 and JR/1416/2009. The Applicant had been born in 1969 and had been subjected to physical and sexual abuse by her father as well as being abused by a paedophile ring. She made two applications, one in respect of the abuse at home and the other in respect of the abuse that she had suffered as a child. Full report here.
S V ADVOCATE GENERAL  Scot (D) 19/7 The Petitioner had been sexually abused by her father when she was 4 years of age. This went on for three years. Many years later it was reported and her father was convicted. The Applicant made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, but it was turned down on the grounds that the event affecting had occurred before October 1979, and the abuse had come from a family member living under the same roof. Full report here.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF M) V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD  EWHC 1701 The Applicant was born in March 1971. In January 1972 he was taken into care by the London Borough of Islington and in 1973 placed with foster parents, Mr and Mrs H. In March 1974, he was taken to hospital by Mr and Mrs H. A few months afterwards in March 1974, he was taken to hospital by Mr and Mrs H. He was unconscious and suffered from a subarachnoid haemorrhage. Medical opinion was that this was a non accidental injury. Full report here.
STUART V UNITED KINGDOM 6TH JULY 1999 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS The Applicant had been abused by her stepfather between 1967 and 1973 when she was aged seven to thirteen. He was convicted in 1997 and she made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This was refused under paragraph 7(b) of the Scheme on the grounds that the payment of compensation was excluded where the criminal injury was received before the 1st October 1979 and the victim and the assailant were living together at the time as members of the same family. She made an application to the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE RICHARDSON  CLY 1447 The Applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of the CICB refusing him compensation for injuries inflicted upon him when he was three years old. The grounds for refusal were that the injuries were inflicted by the Applicant’s mother’s cohabitant, and therefore such a claim was excluded by paragraph 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1969. This paragraph excluded injuries sustained when the victim and offender were living together as members of the same family. Full report here.
RP AND TG V HOME OFFICE AND CICB UNREPORTED 4TH MAY 1994 COURT OF APPEAL RP was born in 1962 and TG was born in 1964. Both were victims of sexual abuse at the hands of their stepfather when they were children. TG suffered the abuse between 1971 and 1982, and RP between 1967 and 1976. They made applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in 1990, but their claims were rejected on the grounds that the abuse had occurred prior to the 1st October 1979, and that abuse had been perpetrated by a member of their own family. TG was awarded £5,000 for the period after 1979. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD  PIQR P314 The Applicant claimed to have suffered serious injury as a victim of offences involving sexual abuse against her by her stepfather between 1967 and 1976. The CICB turned down her claim a) because it was too long after the events complained of and b) because the events complained of occurred before the 1st October 1979. She applied for judicial review of the decision. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE STATEN  1 ALL ER The Applicant and her husband lived with their children in two council flats knocked into one. He was sent to prison for assaulting her, but moved back into the matrimonial home although he slept on the sofa. He then assaulted her again and she made a claim to the CICB. The CICB refused the claim on the grounds that it was caught by paragraph 7 of the Scheme. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE FOX UNREPORTED 8th February 1972 This was an application for an Order of Certiorai in judicial review proceedings against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The application concerned the meaning of the word “family”. The Applicant had been assaulted by a man, with whom she had been living under the same roof. There was no blood relationship between them, nor were they married and their cohabitation was not continuous. The Applicant’s application had been turned down because her injury (according to the CICB) had been caused by a person with whom she was living as a member of her own family.Full report here.
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.