[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Hoare v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 134 (29 January 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/134.html Cite as: [2013] EWCA Civ 134

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
[APPEAL No: JR/2506/2009]

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		29th January 2013

Lord Justice Elias:

1. This is an application from Mr Hoare, who seeks to have permission to bring proceedings by way of judicial review against the First-tier Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal heard a review against the decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. That authority had rejected the claim by Mr Hoare for compensation for a criminal injury. I am not going to go through all the background; suffice it to say that they did so on the basis that they did not believe that he was assaulted criminally as he claimed. The matter went to the First-tier Tribunal. They heard evidence and they came to the same conclusion. They set out in some detail their reasons why they felt that his account of what had occurred was not accurate. The Upper Tribunal Judge refused permission for judicial review on the papers. That was renewed to an oral hearing and it was refused by HHJ Sycamore.
2. The case has now been renewed before this court about 21 months out of time. That, I have to say, is a big problem. But quite independently of that, the real difficulty here, as I have sought to explain to Mr Hoare this morning, is that there no basis on which one can properly judicially review a tribunal below on their findings of fact because those findings have to be treated as final. I have explained to him why that is so. It does sometimes mean that those tribunals may get the facts wrong and that can lead to an injustice because they may believe the wrong witnesses or they may simply think one person is not reliable when in truth he is. That, I am afraid, is the consequence of having to have a system which ultimately says there must be some end to assessing the facts in the case. Obviously I am not in a position to know whether that may have happened in this case. The tribunal has reached a conclusion which it is impossible for any appeal court to interfere with as far as the findings of fact are concerned.
3. Mr Hoare has provided some medical evidence today but that with respect does not demonstrate why he has the problems he has; more specifically, it does not show that the matters recorded resulted from any crime committed against him. It records the fact that he has certain medical difficulties and I am sorry for him on that score but it does not support the fact that he was assaulted as claimed. I am absolutely satisfied that there is no possible way in which he can succeed on this appeal.
4. So I would refuse his application quite independently of considering questions of whether or not he was out of time. He would have had difficulty on that score too. I have tried to explain the importance of finality to him this morning. I know he will be disappointed as he has come down from Liverpool to put this point to me. I have to tell him that it is the end of the line. He has had quite a number of judges looking at this case carefully for him. I know at the end of the day he still thinks it is the wrong decision, but I hope he understands why we cannot do anything for him.

Order: Application refused