A AND B V CICA AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE [2018] EWCA Civ 1534 The Applicants were twin brothers from Lithuania. A was convicted in Lithuania of burglary on the 6th June, 2010 and was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. B was convicted in Lithuania of theft on the 11th December, 2011 and was sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment. In 2013, they were trafficked from Lithuania to the United Kingdom. They applied to the CICA for compensation under the Scheme on the 16th June 2016. 13. At the time of their application, each Applicant had an unspent conviction which resulted in a custodial sentence. On the 7th July, 2016, the CICA Claims Officer wrote to each of the Appellants, refusing to make an award of compensation for their criminal injuries, relying on paragraph 26 of and Annex D to the Scheme. They applied immediately for judicial review against the CICA on the following grounds.Full report here.
R (SH) v FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL [2010] UKUT 186 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. Full report here.
R (PB) V CICAP [2010] UKUT 124 The Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence on the 5th February 2000 as a result of which he suffered a serious brain injury. He applied under the 1996 Scheme. Eventually he came before the CICAP, who decided that his award should be reduced by 33%. The Applicant applied for judicial review in the Administrative Court on the grounds that the proper starting point should have been 25%. His case was then transferred back to the Upper Tribunal.Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE COOK [1996] WLR 1037 The Applicant’s husband was murdered whilst serving a sentence of 16 years. He was actually on parole at the time but had breached the terms of that parole. The Applicant (who was of good character) sought an award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under the 1990 Scheme. The Single Member refused the application pursuant to Paragraph 6(c) of the Scheme on the ground that an award of compensation would be in appropriate having regard to the deceased’s criminal convictions. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE MAXTED 8TH JULY 1993 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.