Hoare v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) & Anor

A tribunal’s findings of fact are final and cannot properly be challenged through judicial review. That finality may sometimes produce factual error or injustice, but it is necessary to bring an end to the assessment of facts. Medical evidence showing medical difficulties does not establish that those difficulties resulted from a criminal assault and therefore does not, without more, provide a basis for review. A substantial delay in renewing an application is an additional difficulty, although the application may be refused independently on the merits.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority rejected a claim for compensation because it did not believe that the appellant had been criminally assaulted as claimed. On review, the First-tier Tribunal heard evidence and reached the same conclusion, giving detailed reasons for rejecting the appellant’s account.

The Upper Tribunal refused permission for judicial review on the papers. Permission was again refused at an oral hearing before HHJ Sycamore. The appellant renewed the application in the Court of Appeal approximately 21 months out of time. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal’s factual findings could properly be challenged by judicial review, including by reference to newly produced medical evidence.

Application refused. Lord Justice Elias held that there was no possible basis on which the appellant could succeed.

1. The application had been renewed approximately 21 months out of time. That presented a substantial difficulty. The court nevertheless refused the application independently of the question of delay.
2. A tribunal below cannot properly be judicially reviewed on the basis that its findings of fact are wrong. Those findings must be treated as final. The system necessarily accepts that a tribunal may sometimes believe the wrong witness or otherwise make a factual error, because there must ultimately be finality in the assessment of facts.
3. The First-tier Tribunal had heard evidence and explained in detail why it rejected the appellant’s account of the alleged assault. Its conclusion on the facts was therefore not open to interference by an appeal court or by judicial review.
4. The medical evidence established that the appellant had medical difficulties, but did not demonstrate that those difficulties resulted from a crime committed against him. It therefore did not support the asserted assault or provide an arguable ground for judicial review.

The application was refused. The court explained that the matter had reached the end of the line.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings was refused in [2013] EWCA Civ 134.
2. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): permission for judicial review was refused on the papers and again at an oral hearing before HHJ Sycamore.
3. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): after hearing evidence, the tribunal upheld the rejection of the criminal injury compensation claim on the facts.
4. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority: the original compensation claim was rejected because the alleged criminal assault was not believed.