R (Stephenson) v First-Tier Tribunal

Subject Matter

CRIME — Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority — Compensation, whether payable — Claimant suffering from congenital disability since childhood — Father unlawfully killing claimant’s mother causing loss of her parental services to claimant — Maternal aunt having extension built to accommodate claimant’s needs — Claimant seeking scheme award additional to tariff award for costs of extending accommodation and other costs — Meaning of “other resultant losses” — Whether losses confined to those resulting from criminal act or extending to those resulting from claimant’s qualifying status — Whether compensation for extension to property as special adaptation expense amounting to significant widening of scheme — Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2001), para 42(b)

[2025] EWCA Civ 1160; [2025] WLR(D) 466, CA

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In the Court of Appeal, Dominic Stephenson appealed the First-Tier Tribunal's decision on compensation under the 2001 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The Tribunal awarded £44,210 but denied claims for accommodation costs and Court of Protection expenses, stating they were not linked to the loss of parental services from his mother's death. The Upper Tribunal upheld this view, clarifying that "other resultant losses" must directly arise from the unlawful killing. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower courts' rulings on recoverable losses under the scheme.

Issues

• Did the Upper Tribunal misinterpret paragraph 42(b) of the 2001 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme regarding the definition of "other resultant losses" related to loss of parental services?
• Was the Upper Tribunal correct in determining that the costs of accommodation adaptations were not recoverable as they did not arise from the loss of parental services due to the mother's death?
• Did the Upper Tribunal err in concluding that Court of Protection costs were not recoverable as they were a result of Dominic's pre-existing disability rather than the unlawful killing of his mother?

Appellate History