The interested party, who had been conceived as a result of the rape of her birth mother, was subsequently instrumental in ensuring that the crime was investigated and in securing the rapist’s conviction. She applied for an award of compensation under paragraph 4 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2012) on the basis that she suffered from psychological issues as a result of the rape that her birth mother had been subjected to. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority rejected her application on the basis that she was not the direct victim of the crime, which decision was upheld on a review under paragraph 117 of the Scheme. On appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, the interested party, inter alia, raised a new ground of eligibility under paragraph 5 of the Scheme, namely that her psychological issues were a criminal injury directly attributable to the exceptional and justified risk that she had taken to contain or remedy the consequences of a crime. The tribunal allowed her appeal and quashed the tribunal’s decision, stating that it was satisfied that the interested party’s actions in bringing to justice the man who had raped her mother fell within paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Scheme. The authority sought judicial review of the tribunal’s decision, raising the issue of the scope of an appeal to the tribunal under paragraph 125 of the 2012 Scheme.
On the authority’s claim—
Held, claim allowed. The right of review available to applicants for compensation under paragraph 117(a) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 arose in respect of “a decision as to the determination of an award or its amount”, which included a determination that an applicant was not eligible for an award under the Scheme. The First-tier Tribunal’s function was limited to deciding an appeal against the decision on review by a claims officer of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which was preliminary to a determination. However, the tribunal had jurisdiction to identify an error if the review claims officer ought to have considered another ground for eligibility on the evidence and information available at the time of the review, or that such evidence or information had been presented to the tribunal on appeal. Having allowed an appeal against the decision, the tribunal’s function was limited to giving directions for determination. It had no power to determine the application itself and the final disposal of an application was to be determined by a claims officer. In the circumstances, the tribunal’s decision would be quashed and the matter remitted to the authority for consideration of the interested party’s eligibility for compensation under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 2012 Scheme (paras 2, 17–18, 20, 22, 25–27).
Sophie Beesley (instructed by Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) for the authority.
Adam Weitzman KC and Joshua Yetman (instructed by Switalskis Solicitors) for the interested party.
The First-tier Tribunal did not appear and was not represented.