Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v Vincent Hutton and Others First Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Gross,Lady Justice Rafferty,Lord Justice Floyd |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 1305 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C3/2015/3262, C3/2015/3263 & C3/2015/3264 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 December 2016 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 1305
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
Upper Tribunal Judge H. Levenson
JR/2188/2013
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Gross
Lady Justice Rafferty
and
Lord Justice Floyd
Case No: C3/2015/3262, C3/2015/3263 & C3/2015/3264
and
Owain Thomas QC (instructed by Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) for the Appellant
Chris Buttler (instructed by Stephensons Solicitors LLP) for the Respondents
Hearing date: 07 December, 2016
Approved Judgment
INTRODUCTION
This matter reaches us by way of an appeal by the Appellants ("CICA"), from decisions of the Upper Tribunal ("UT"), quashing decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal ("FTT"), itself refusing appeals against CICA decisions not to waive the time limit for claiming an award under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 ("the Scheme").
Though overlaid with important considerations as to the jurisdiction and role of the FTT, the UT and, indeed, this Court, the underlying question is whether the Respondents ("the claimants") are entitled to an extension of time of some 40 years in order to advance their claims for compensation under the Scheme.
Sympathy and understanding cannot determine the outcome of these proceedings but the Court, as we indicated during the hearing, is very much alive to the family tragedy which has had a profound impact on the lives of all the claimants.
Since 1964, a scheme has been in place for the payment of compensation to, or in respect of, persons who have sustained a criminal injury, inter alia, personal injury directly attributable to a crime of violence. The version of the scheme with which this appeal is concerned is the 2001 Scheme (i.e., the Scheme). Where the victim of a criminal injury sustained on or after 1 st August, 1964 has since died, compensation may be paid to an applicant who is a qualifying claimant within the meaning of the Scheme. CICA claims officers determine claims for compensation in accordance with the Scheme.
On the 4 th December, 1966, Abraham Roy Hutton ("the deceased") was stabbed and killed by De Courcey Griffiths ("Griffiths") in Bedford. In the event, on 16 th February, 1967, Griffiths, though charged with the deceased's murder, was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
The claimants, Vincent Hutton ("VH") and Fiona Hutton ("FH") are, respectively, the son and daughter of the deceased. Yvonne Akers ("YA") is the mother of VH and FH. As will be seen below, a question arose as to the precise nature of her relationship with the deceased; that question is of importance to her position but not to that of VH or FH.
On the 2 nd June, 2008, nearly 40 years out of time, VH made a claim under the Scheme, on his own behalf and on behalf of FH and YA as well.
Pausing here and insofar as material, the Scheme provides as follows:
" Eligibility to receive compensation
13. A claims officer may withhold or reduce an award where he considers that:
(d) the conduct of the applicant before, during or after the incident giving rise to the application makes it inappropriate that a full award or any award at all be made; …
15. Where the victim has died since sustaining the injury (whether or not in consequence of it), paragraphs 13 and 14 will apply in relation both to the deceased and any applicant for compensation under paragraphs 37–44 (fatal awards).
Consideration of applications
18. An application for compensation under this Scheme in respect of a criminal injury ('injury'…) must be made in writing on a form obtainable from the Authority. It should be made as soon as possible after the incident giving rise to the injury and must be received by the Authority within two years of the date of the incident. A claims officer may waive this time limit where he considers that, by reason of the particular circumstances of the case, it is reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so.
19. It will be for the applicant to make out his case including, where appropriate:
(a) making out his case for a waiver of the time limit….
(b) satisfying the claims officer ….that an award should not be reconsidered, withheld or reduced under any provision of the Scheme.
Compensation in fatal cases
…..
38. Where the victim has died since sustaining the injury, compensation may be payable, subject to paragraphs 13–15 (actions, conduct and character), to any claimant (a 'qualifying claimant') who at the time of the deceased's death was:
(a) the partner of the deceased, being only, for these purposes:
(i) a person who was living together with the deceased as husband and wife….in the same household immediately before the date of death and who, unless formally married to him, had been so living throughout the two years before that date….
(c) a natural child of the deceased…..
64. The standard of proof to be applied by the Panel in all matters before it will be the balance of probabilities. It will be for the appellant to make out his case….."
It may be noted that there are broadly three types of compensation for death payable under the Scheme. First, the "standard amount" of compensation, i.e., what may be termed a "conventional" award. Secondly, "dependency", where the qualifying claimant has suffered financial loss flowing from the death. Thirdly, "loss of parental services", where the claimant is a child under the age of 18.
As explained by the Guide to the 2008 Scheme (which was, so far as material, in the same terms as the Scheme), the conventional award:
" …recognises the fact that someone very close to you has died as a result of a crime of violence. No amount of money can make up for the death of a close relative – the standard amount is a gesture of public sympathy for the grief caused by the death."
The amount payable by way of a conventional award is a fixed sum: £11,000 if there is only one qualifying claimant; £5,500 for each person if there is more than one qualifying claimant.
Reverting to the history, on the 11 th August, 2008, CICA rejected all the claims, saying this:
" Under paragraph 18 of the Scheme we must receive all applications for compensation within two years of the date of the incident. We can only accept an application outside this time limit if it is reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so. In your case, because of the delay in sending us the application, we have been unable to get police information to confirm the facts surrounding the incident in which the deceased was involved. In these circumstances I am unable to waive the time limit."
The claimants requested and obtained an internal review. On the 10 th February, 2009, CICA confirmed that it was unable to make an award under the Scheme. Its reasons were as follows:
" Under paragraph 18 of the Scheme we must receive all applications for compensation within two years of the incident. We can only accept an application outside the time limit if it is reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so. In your case, there are no particular circumstances which make it reasonable or in the interests of justice for us to accept a late application. I note that you have applied for compensation 42 years after the incident. The ….Scheme has been in existence since 1964. Although you have provided us with information about the sad incident in which you lost your father, and I note that you were a child at the time, it is reasonable in the circumstances to expect an application to be submitted when you reached adulthood at the age of 21. I am therefore unable to waive the time limit."
Very protracted litigation has since ensued. On the 25 th September 2009, the claimants' appeals to the FTT failed. Subsequently, the UT refused the claimants permission to bring Judicial Review. That might have been the end of the road but the claimants enjoyed better fortune when the single Lord Justice granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
On the 14 th June, 2012, a different constitution of this Court allowed the claimants' appeals, granted permission to bring Judicial Review proceedings in respect of the FTT's (2009) decision but remitted the matter to the UT to determine the actual Judicial Review: see, [2012] EWCA Civ 806. The crux of the Court's reasoning appears from the judgment of Aikens LJ, at [41] – [42]:
" 41. In my view Judge Ward undoubtedly erred in law in his construction of paragraph 18 of the Scheme terms. He considered that the first question he had to ask was whether there were any relevant 'particular circumstances' in this case and the second question was whether or not it was in the 'interests of justice' to waive the time limit. That misreads the last sentence of paragraph 18. That states that a Claims Officer 'may waive' the 2 year time limit where he considers that ' by reason of the particular circumstances of the case, it is reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so'. To my mind, the words ' particular circumstances' mean the actual or distinct circumstances of this individual case. They do not mean 'special' circumstances in the sense of being unusual or extraordinary circumstances. So the task of the Claims Officer or Reviewing Officer is to establish the actual circumstances of this particular case. Having done so he has then to ask: given the circumstances of this particular case, is it reasonable and in the interests of justice to waive the time limit.
42. In performing that exercise, I think that the wording requires that the Claims Officer must consider all relevant factors. These may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carolyne Willow v The Information Commissioner Ministry of Justice
...the areas in which there was disagreement. In similar vein were the observations in Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v Hutton [2016] EWCA Civ 1305 per Gross LJ (summarised at [57]). Irrationality 26 Mr Wise argues the appeal on two distinct grounds. First, he submits that the Upper......
-
CICA v F-tT and RC (CIC); RN v F-tT and CICA (CIC)
...in the relevant field, and I respect their factual findings: Jones; Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v Hutton and Others [2016] EWCA Civ 1305 at I must decide whether the two tribunals applied the law correctly in relation to the facts that each found. The answer to that question st......
-
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-tier Tribunal and AS (CIC)
...I have taken account of the comments made by the Court of Appeal in Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v Hutton and Others [2016] EWCA Civ 1305 [“Hutton”] about the jurisdiction and role of the Upper Tribunal when hearing an application for judicial review of a First-tier Tribunal’s d......
-
Dml For Judicial Review Of The Decision Of The First-tier Tribunal (social Entitlement Chamber) Refusing The Petitioner's Application For Compensation To The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
...out in the notice the issues it intended to consider, though it might do so. [29] In Hutton v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2016] EWCA Civ 1305, [2017] ACD 20 the Court of Appeal held that the time limit issue was clear in the Authority’s decision and that the claimant could not......