R (Jones) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority's appeal and restored the First-tier Tribunal's decision refusing compensation. The Court held that the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had properly applied the mens rea test for an offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and had reached a permissible factual conclusion that the alleged offender did not actually foresee physical harm to others and therefore had not committed a section 20 offence. Because no section 20 offence was proved, the FTT correctly did not proceed to consider whether a section 20 offence would in any event amount to a "crime of violence" under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001. The Court emphasised the limits of appellate intervention in factual findings by specialist tribunals and the primary role of tribunals in developing consistent guidance within specialised statutory schemes.

Background and facts:

• At about 2.20 am on 18 January 2005 Mr Barry Hughes ran into the carriageway of the A282 and was struck and killed by an articulated lorry. The collision caused the lorry to swerve and collide with a Highways Agency gritter driven by Mr Gareth Jones, who suffered catastrophic injuries.
• Mr Jones (represented by his mother) applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 for compensation but the CICA refused because it was not satisfied a recognisable crime of violence had been committed of which Mr Jones was the victim.

Procedural history:

• The FTT refused the claim, finding no evidence that Mr Hughes intended to harm or actually foresaw harm to other road users and therefore that a section 20 offence had not been committed.
• The Upper Tribunal dismissed judicial review of the FTT decision ([2010] UKUT 199, [2011] RTR 55).
• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter ([2012] QB 345).
• The CICA appealed to the Supreme Court.

Nature of the application: An application for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001; the relief sought was an award of compensation on the basis that Mr Jones was a victim of a criminal injury directly attributable to a "crime of violence".

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the FTT was entitled on the evidence to find that Mr Hughes did not have the mens rea of recklessness required for an offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
• If a section 20 offence were established, whether that offence would in any event amount to a "crime of violence" for the purposes of the Scheme.
• What role appellate courts and specialist tribunals should play in reviewing factual findings and developing consistent guidance under specialised statutory schemes.

Reasoning and decision:

• The Court concluded that the FTT correctly identified the legal test for section 20 (actual foresight of some physical harm, even if not of the precise degree of injury) and that it reached a rational factual conclusion that Mr Hughes did not actually foresee harm to others when he ran into the road.
• Because the FTT found no section 20 offence, it was not required to answer whether a section 20 offence would be a crime of violence; the Court observed that a section 20 offence would always be a crime of violence but the factual question of whether the offence existed had been decided against the claimant.
• The Court criticised the Court of Appeal for substituting its own view of the facts and for failing to identify an error of law in the FTT's reasoning. The Supreme Court restored the FTT's decision refusing compensation.
• The Court also commented on the tribunal appellate structure under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the proper role of specialist tribunals in giving guidance to achieve consistency.

Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court held that the First-tier Tribunal had correctly applied the law on the mens rea required for an offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and had reached a rational factual conclusion that the alleged offender did not actually foresee physical harm to others; because no section 20 offence was proved, the tribunal correctly did not proceed to consider the separate question whether a section 20 offence would be a "crime of violence" under the Scheme. The Court refused to disturb the FTT's factual findings and restored its decision refusing compensation.

FTT decision refusing compensation (8 May 2009); Upper Tribunal dismissed judicial review ([2010] UKUT 199, [2011] RTR 55); Court of Appeal allowed appeal and remitted ([2012] QB 345); appeal to the Supreme Court allowed and FTT decision restored ([2013] UKSC 19).