WS, R (on the application of) v The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

When deciding whether exceptional circumstances justify extending the time limit for a criminal injuries compensation application, the tribunal must assess the applicant’s wider circumstances. This includes the reasons for the applicant’s ignorance of the compensation scheme and how those circumstances affected the ability to apply earlier. A tribunal errs in law if it merely records ignorance as a relevant factor without evaluating it as part of the circumstances preventing a timely application. The decision should then be quashed and remitted for reconsideration by a fresh tribunal.

WS applied for criminal injuries compensation more than two years after being stabbed. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refused to extend time under paragraph 89 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the basis that he could reasonably practicably have applied earlier.

WS sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal granted permission and considered whether the First-tier Tribunal had properly assessed his health, wider circumstances, and lack of knowledge of the Scheme. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal had applied the approach required when deciding whether exceptional circumstances prevented an earlier application.

1. Application granted. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision dated 22 March 2024 was quashed under section 15(1)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
2. Paragraph 87 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 requires an application to be received as soon as reasonably practicable and, subject to specified exceptions, within two years of the incident. Under paragraph 89, time may be extended where exceptional circumstances meant that the applicant could not have applied earlier and the evidence permits determination without further extensive enquiries.
3. The approach in R(JA) v First-tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Interested Party) [2024] UKUT 121 (AAC) requires the tribunal to explore the applicant’s wider circumstances, including why the applicant did not know that the Scheme existed. That assessment frames the reasonableness of the applicant’s failure to discover the Scheme and forms part of the circumstances said to have prevented an earlier application.
4. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that ignorance of the Scheme was relevant, but failed to evaluate WS’s wider circumstances and the reasons for his ignorance in the manner required by R(JA). That was a material error of law. It was unnecessary to determine the alternative grounds concerning the assessment of WS’s functioning and the relevance of later evidence.
5. The appeal was remitted under section 17(1)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to a fresh First-tier Tribunal for an oral hearing. The new tribunal must not include members involved in the earlier decision, must apply the principles in R(JA), and may reach the same or a different outcome after making its own findings.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): granted judicial review, quashed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, and remitted the appeal to a fresh tribunal.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): dismissed WS’s appeal against CICA’s refusal to extend time under paragraph 89 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 in its decision dated 22 March 2024.
• Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority: refused WS’s application and review request because it was made outside the two-year period and exceptional circumstances had not been established.