Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, R (on the application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) & Anor

When deciding whether to waive a time limit for reopening or challenging an old criminal injuries compensation decision, the tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances. These include the length and reasons for delay, the applicant’s vulnerability, evidential prejudice, the public interest in certainty and finality, and the interests of justice as a whole.

A tribunal need not mention every relevant consideration expressly, provided its decision shows that the material was read, understood and balanced. In historic sexual abuse cases, delay alone is not determinative. A decision will be unlawful only if relevant considerations were omitted, the reasoning is inadequate, or the conclusion is outside the range of reasonable decisions.

MB’s claim for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990 had been refused in 1997 under paragraph 6a. In 2015, the First-tier Tribunal refused to reopen the claim on the basis of fresh medical evidence but allowed MB to challenge the original refusal out of time under paragraph 22.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority sought judicial review. It argued that the tribunal had failed to consider evidential and administrative prejudice, and the importance of finality after a lengthy delay. The central issue was whether the tribunal had lawfully exercised its discretion to permit the late challenge.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision to allow MB to challenge the 1997 refusal out of time was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable.

2. Under paragraph 22 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990, the tribunal was entitled to decide whether an extension was justified by the interests of justice. The relevant assessment required a balance between the reasons favouring revival of the claim and the reasons against it.

3. The tribunal was entitled to consider MB’s age, vulnerability, lack of understanding of the original claim, the nature of the historic sexual abuse, and the reporting and conviction of the offender. Guidance concerning historic sexual abuse claims was relevant even though it had arisen under the differently worded Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008.

4. Lengthy delay did not, without more, require refusal of an extension. The tribunal also had to consider the potential effect of delay on the Authority’s evidence, the desirability of certainty and finality, and any delay after legal representation began. However, a decision-maker need not expressly and elaborately identify every material consideration. It was sufficient that the tribunal had read and absorbed the written submissions, was plainly aware of the delay and prejudice arguments, and reached a reasoned conclusion.

5. The reference to the overriding objective was properly understood as including the requirements in rule 2(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 to avoid delay so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues and to enable parties to participate fully.

6. The tribunal’s findings of fact were not challenged. On a fair reading, it had balanced the competing considerations and was entitled to conclude that justice required MB to have an oral hearing on whether he had cooperated with the authorities.

• First-tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation): On 28 April 2015, Judge Storey refused to reopen the claim on the basis of fresh medical evidence but permitted MB to challenge the 1997 refusal out of time.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The tribunal’s decision was upheld.