Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-tier Tribunal and AS (CIC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Knowles |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 43 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Criminal injuries compensation,Criminal injuries compensation - claims,Knowles,G |
| Date | 30 January 2017 |
| Published date | 15 February 2017 |
CICA v (1) First-tier Tribunal (2) AS
[2017] UKUT 0043 (AAC)
JR/1555/2015
1
JR/1555/2015
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KNOWLES QC
DECISIONS
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 23 January 2015 is quashed.
The matter is remitted to a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal to
rehear this appeal in accordance with the guidance given herein.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. This application for judicial review challenged a decision of the First-tier
Tribunal made on 23 January 2015 which found that the Interested Party,
Mr S, was a victim of a crime of violence who was entitled to an award of
compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012.
The circumstances were that, whilst using a pedestrian crossing, Mr S
was hit and seriously injured by a cyclist who was cycling in what the
tribunal found to be a dangerous and reckless manner.
2. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was the Applicant and is
referred to as “CICA”. The formal Respondent, the First-tier Tribunal,
took no part in these proceedings as is both customary and proper. I
refer to it as “the tribunal”. Finally I refer to the Interested Party as “Mr S”
and to the perpetrator of the alleged crime of violence as “X”.
3. I have taken care not to identify by name any of the persons involved in
the incident which so seriously injured Mr S. That is not only
unnecessary but would also undermine the decision made by Mr S in
conjunction with the police that restorative justice was a suitable remedy
for what X had done.
4. I gave permission to CICA to bring proceedings for judicial review on 24
August 2015 and this application was originally listed for hearing on 22
January 2016. Unfortunately due to bereavement in one of the parties’
legal teams, this hearing had to be postponed until 30 September 2016.
CICA v (1) First-tier Tribunal (2) AS
[2017] UKUT 0043 (AAC)
JR/1555/2015
2
5. Mr Ben Collins of counsel appeared on behalf of CICA and Mr Colm
Nugent of counsel appeared on behalf of Mr S. Both advocates had
submitted detailed written submissions together with a bundle of relevant
case law. I am very grateful to them for the helpful and thoughtful
manner in which they made their oral submissions to me.
6. I regret that other judicial business, sickness and leave has prevented
me from issuing a decision until now. I have taken time to reflect upon
the difficult issues raised in this case and, in particular, 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 decision
in a criminal injuries compensation case. The decision of the Court of
Appeal post-dated the hearing but I decided that it was not necessary for
me to require the parties to make additional written submissions
addressing the implications of that decision for this application.
Summary of My Decision
7. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first Upper Tribunal decision to
consider a claim for criminal injuries compensation arising from an
incident involving a non-motorised vehicle, in this case, a bicycle.
8. I have concluded that the tribunal’s decision on 23 January 2015 was in
error of law. First, it erroneously concluded that Mr S was the victim of a
crime of violence by reference to the consequences rather than the
nature of that act. Further, in coming to its decision on that issue, it failed
to have regard to X’s actual state of mind during the incident.
9. Second, the tribunal failed to consider what was in X’s mind during the
incident in order to come to a reasoned view about what was his
intention. It was required to consider that issue by paragraph 4(1)(b) of
Annex B to the 2012 Scheme. That omission and the failure to address
explicitly the relevant parts of X’s police interview meant that the tribunal
came to a view about whether X used his bicycle with intent to cause
injury to Mr S to which no reasonable tribunal could have come.
10. Third and finally, the tribunal accepted the opinion evidence of a police
officer, PC B, on issues which it was required to determine for itself such
as the accuracy of the accounts of the witnesses and what happened
during the course of the incident. Most importantly the tribunal abrogated
its fact finding responsibility in relation to issues which touched on X’s
state of mind. That constituted a fundamental error rendering the
tribunal’s decision as a whole unlawful.
11. I quash the decision in its entirety.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
CICA v F-tT and RC (CIC); RN v F-tT and CICA (CIC)
...was under the earlier scheme it should still be followed: in Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-tier Tribunal and AS [2017] UKUT 0043 (AAC) Upper Tribunal Judge Knowles (as she then approved the tests. This, he said, approved the concept that a hostile act was sufficient. 45. ......