BC v First-tier Tribunal and CICA  UKUT 155 (AAC) (22 March 2016) In this case the applicant was born on 11 May 1977. On 9 April 2013 he made a claim for compensation under the 2012 scheme on the basis that from the ages of 9 and 12 (in the mid and late 1980s) he had been the victim of physical and sexual abuse. He reached the age of 18 in 1995. In November 2010 the applicant was approached by the police and he disclosed the abuse that he had undergone and made a written statement. On 10 August 2011 the perpetrator pleaded guilty to and was convicted of offences against the applicant. The Authority refused to waive the time limit on the claim, which decision was upheld by the First-tier Tribunal. However, Levenson J in the Upper-tier Tribunal quashed that decision and remitted the application for a further hearing before the lower tribunal. In applying rule 89(a) of the 2012 scheme there are two subsidiary questions that needed to be asked: (1) Were there exceptional circumstances? (2) Did any of them mean that the applicant could not have applied earlier than he did apply? Whether anything was exceptional was primarily a question of fact for the decision making authority or the First-tier Tribunal but those bodies had to be reasonable in reaching a conclusion.
R(MJ) v FTT and CICA  UKUT 76 (AAC) (17 February 2014) The Applicant was born in 1977 and had been a pupil at a school between 1983 and 1990. In 2010, the Applicant claimed criminal injuries under the 2008 Scheme for serious and repeated sexual abuse by W and by T and also some acts of non-sexual physical abuse. W and T were both prosecuted. In the case of W, there was no evidence of the offences in respect of which he was prosecuted and thus of their victims. There was evidence in the form of a certificate of conviction from the relevant Crown Court which indicated that T had faced 3 counts of gross indecency with a male person under the age of 16 and 12 of indecent assault on a male person under the age of 16. In the case of five counts. Counts 13 and 14 were each marked with three asterisks on the certificate, but there was no key as to what those asterisks signified. Full report here.
COLEFAX V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL  EWCA Civ 945 The Applicant was the victim of a violent assault by two men on about 21st May 2007. They smacked his head against a brick wall, causing loss of consciousness, multiple fractures of his jaw, and a wound over his right eye. He had surgery to repair his jaw later that month, including the insertion of plates and pins, causing him to lose a number of teeth. In December 2007, the Applicant suffered an epileptic seizure. Thereafter, he made his application for compensation under the Scheme on 26th November 2009, in relation both to his physical and mental injuries. Full report here.
R(MM) v FTT and CICA  UKUT 402 (AAC) The Applicant applied for criminal injuries compensation on 20 December 2011. He said that he had been raped in the summer of 1970 when he was aged 8. He did not know the name of the man, but he was a painter working on the houses where Mr M lived. The man called him into a shed to sort out some paint pots. He then shut the door, held Mr M by the stomach and head, and anally raped him. He described the effects as being ‘depressed, suicidal, panic attacks, nightmares, distressing images of the incident, sleep disorder and sexual problems.’ Full report here.
AG v FTT AND CICA  UKUT 357 (AAC) (23 July 2013) The Applicant said that in 2008, she went to nightclub with two female friends. At the end of the night, driving the Applicant’s car, the doorman took the women back to the Applicant’s home. She believes that her drink had been spiked by him because she awoke in her own bed, unable to move while the doorman got on top of her, had sexual intercourse with her and touched her. The Applicant reported to the police that the man in question had been sending her threatening texts and made phone calls threatening to kill her and the police issued him with a harassment warning. Full report here.
Hutton v First-tier Tribunal  EWCA Civ 806,  1 WLR 124 In this case (which concerned the 2008 Scheme) the appellant's father had been fatally stabbed in 1966. At the time of his death, the appellant was barely five months old. He and his siblings (who were also infants) were traumatised. All three made applications to the CICA but were refused on the grounds that their claims were past the time limit. The Court of Appeal (allowing the judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's decision) said that the wording of para 18 required that the CICA should consider all relevant factors. These might include the length of the delay in making the claim, the reasons for the delay and the nature of the claim itself. The relative importance of particular factors would depend on the particular circumstances of the case being considered. See further YA v The Firsttier Tribunal and Another  UKUT 399 (AAC) (16 July 2015) The Upper Tribunal has deliberated on the time limit in other cases, R (MJ) v First-tier Tribunal and CICA  UKUT 76 (AAC) and R (MM) v FTT and CICA.  UKUT 402 (AAC).
R(RW) V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (CIC)  UKUT 280 The Applicant, a 75 year old man was assaulted after getting out of his car to confront some youths on the 20th November 2006. He did not report the incident to the police until 22 December 2006, and when he applied to the CICA for compensation, he said that he did not want to waste police time as it would be impossible to trace the youths. The CICA turned down his claim on the ground that there had been an unreasonable delay in reporting the incident to the police. It relied on paragraph 13(a) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001, and on review upheld that decision. Full report here.
R(AM) V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (CIC)  UKUT 55 The Applicant was assaulted on the 29th August 2006, but did not make a claim until the 22nd February 2010. He said that he had been visited by a victim liaison officer after the assault who had said that she would complete the necessary papers. The CICA turned down his claim on the grounds that it was out of time. He instructed solicitors in March 2010 who applied for a review, which was again turned down, and so with his solicitor’s help he appealed. The Appeal Panel decided that was practicable to consider the application, but it had not been reasonable for the Applicant to have delayed making a claim. Full report here.
HUTTON V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY  EWCA Civ 806 The Applicant’s father was fatally stabbed on the 4th December 1966, leaving his mother, sister and himself. His mother later had a nervous breakdown and his sister later suffered mental health problems. The Applicant had located details of his father’s assailant’s trial from the National Archives together with witness statements and other documentation, which gave details of what had happened. In June 2008, the Applicant made an application to the CICA, and he also made claims on behalf of his mother and sister (who were not well enough to make their own applications) Full report here.
HUTTON V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY  EWCA 1560 (QB) 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. Full report here.
R(MJ) V FTT & CICA  UKUT 402 This was an application for judicial review against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal to refuse to make an award. The Applicant had been born in April 1977. In 1983 he was sent to a boarding school, where he was sexually abused by teachers. Both were charged by the police in around 1990. One committed suicide prior to trial and the other was convicted. The school itself was closed down. In October 2010, the Applicant made an application to the CICA. Full report here.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF M) V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL  EWHC 243 The Applicant was taken into care by Liverpool Social Services when he was about 15 years of age. He was born in April 1959 and was now aged 42. Between 1974 and 1975, he was sexually abused by a member of staff, and then later sexually abused by a social worker. He mentioned the abuse to his GP in 1989 and to a specialist mental health team in 1997. Full report here.
X V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD 5TH JULY 1999 TIMES LAW REPORTS The Petitioner was born in October 1966. She alleged sexual abuse by one M over a period of years from about the time she was 8 years old. M was the uncle of a friend of the Petitioner who also suffered sexual abuse at his hands. The Petitioner first disclosed the abuse to a psychologist in 1993 and then to the police in 1994. However proceedings were not taken due to a lack of corroborative evidence. Full report here.
X V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD Outer House, Court of Session 11th June 1999 The Petitioner was born in 1966. Her claim for compensation was based on allegations of sexual abuse by M over a period of year from the time she was eight years old. Information from the police indicated that he had been convicted of indecent assault of a friend of hers when she was eight years old. The Petitioner first disclosed the abuse to a psychologist in 1993, and her allegations were reported to the police in 1994. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE DELARMI UNREPORTED 22ND FEBRUARY 1996 The Applicant suffered a serious sexual and physical attack in 1958, as a result of which he suffered unpleasant physical injuries as well as psychological damage. The assailant was convicted and imprisoned. At the time he was 11 years old. He made an application to the CICB in 1994 under the 1990 Scheme, but this was refused by the Chairman of the Board due to the fact that the claim had not been brought within the then 3 year time limit.Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE D 6th JUNE 1995 JUDGE J The Applicant was born in 1958. As a young child she was sexually abused by her father. The assaults took place between the ages of 7 and 14. She made her first complaint to the police in 1989, and alleged abuse not against her father but also two other members of her family, one of whom she later said in interview was her grandfather. However she did not want both her father and her grandfather to be prosecuted at the same time. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE DICKENSON 22ND FEBRUARY 1995 The Applicant was sexually abused by her brother in law between 1976 and 1988. He was convicted of the abuse in 1992 and in 1993 she made an application for compensation to the CICB, but the Board refused to waive the three time limit. The Applicant complained that this was irrational since there had been a conviction. There was also a finding by the CICB that the Applicant had been living with her assailant at the time of his first conviction in 1976. This would have been caught by the “same roof rule” if the abuser and victim were living together prior to the 1st October 1979.Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE A 20th FEBRUARY 1992 MCCULLOUGH J The Applicant was born in October 1967 and she alleged that her stepfather had sexually abused her during the two years or so up to Christmas 1984. The last offence had been committed while the Applicant was living with her mother and stepfather, in Christmas 1984. Shortly after Christmas, her mother told her to leave which she did, then aged 17 and at school. She went to London to see her father and spent the rest of the school holidays with him. She then claimed for benefits at which point she disclosed the offences. Full report here.
R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD EX PARTE WILSON 5TH FEBRUARY 1991 The Applicant was born in 1964. As a child she was sexually abused by her step father between 1974 and 1980. She reported the matter to the police in 1988 and the stepfather was convicted. In May 1990 she made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, but her application was refused on the grounds that it had been made more than three years after the incidents pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Scheme, and the Applicant had reached the age of her majority in 1985. The Applicant applied for judicial review of the decision.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.