BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
CM v The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (Criminal Injuries) and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2021] UKUT 326 (AAC) (16 March 2021)
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the application for judicial review of the FTT's (First-Tier Tribunal's) decision.
The appeal before the FTT concerned the applicant's award for compensation after suffering abuse at the hands of his parents under the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008 ("the 2008 Scheme"). Eligibility was not in issue but only the amount of the award (quantum).
The appeal was against a review decision made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (the Interested Party) on 19 October 2012. It was accepted that the Applicant was the victim of a crime of violence. The authority made an award for a sexual assault on a child at level 13 which was an amount of £11,000. In addition, an award was made for physical abuse of a child at level 1. The amount was £1,000. As this was a second award, 30% was payable i.e. £300. The total tariff award was therefore £11,300.
On appeal the FTT made an award of £295,183 after an oral hearing on 29 April 2019, whereas the Applicant had argued for an award of £500,000.
The Upper Tribunal rejected the 3 grounds on which permission for judicial review had been granted.
Ground 1 – Future loss of earnings – The Upper Tribunal was satisfied that the FTT had taken into account relevant evidence from Dr Jarman and not ignored it, nor wholly rejected it. Dr Jarman's evidence was considered by the FTT and relied upon in the decision notice and summary of reasons when making an award for future loss of earnings. It was on this basis the Applicant was made an award of £20,000 for future loss of earnings as a lump sum. However, Dr Jarman's opinion was considered alongside all the other evidence about the Applicant's past and subsequent ability to hold down a job at paragraph 68 of the written statement of reasons and in the decision notice. The Upper Tribunal was also satisfied therefore that there was no real inconsistency between the FTT's making a lump sum award, and its (limited) use of a multiplier/multiplicand method – the latter was a check on the former, without in any way undermining that it was the former approach which was used. Indeed, carrying out such a check its approach was consistent with its use of the lump sum approach.
Ground 2 – Future care and Ground 3 – Administration costs The Upper Tribunal was satisfied that the FTT did not make an unreasonable finding at paragraphs 112 of its written reasons, nor failed to take into account relevant evidence or give sufficient reasons, when finding that the Applicant would only need future care for a further 10 years. The same applied in relation to Administration Costs.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2021] UKUT 326 (AAC)
