R (ARY) v The First-tier Tribunal

A tribunal deciding eligibility for criminal injuries compensation must identify the precise alleged offences, make clear findings of fact on each material allegation, and give adequate reasons before concluding that the claimant was not the victim of a crime of violence. Where the allegations are multiple or unclear, addressing only some incidents or focusing generally on credibility may constitute a material error of law. The appropriate remedy may be to quash the decision and remit the appeal for re-determination by a differently constituted panel, with a hearing where necessary.

ARY applied for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 in respect of alleged sexual assaults and related conduct. CICA rejected the application and upheld that decision on review. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed ARY’s appeal on 24 November 2023, finding that it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that she had been the victim of a crime of violence.

Permission for judicial review was granted on the limited ground that the First-tier Tribunal may have failed to establish the precise offences relied upon and therefore made inadequate findings and gave inadequate reasons. The central issue was whether that failure amounted to a material error of law.

1. The application for judicial review succeeded. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 24 November 2023 was quashed under section 15 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
2. The claim concerned several allegations, including sexual assaults by penetration, an alleged assault after a drink was spiked, sexual touching, and possible threats or controlling conduct. The evidence and police material did not clearly identify how the alleged offences related to the individual incidents.
3. The First-tier Tribunal focused on three assaults by penetration. It did not clearly address the spiked-drink incident, the cinema incident, or the possible threat of immediate violence under paragraph 2(1)(c) of Annex B to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012.
4. Although the Statement of Reasons focused heavily on credibility, it did not contain clear and sufficient findings of fact on the precise criminal offences relied upon. It was entirely plausible that at least one allegation might have been proved had the allegations first been properly identified and determined. The failure was therefore a material error of law.
5. Under section 17 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the appeal was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-determination. The new panel must be differently constituted and must hold a hearing.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): The First-tier Tribunal’s decision dated 24 November 2023 was quashed and the appeal was remitted for re-determination.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (Criminal Injuries Compensation): Appeal against CICA’s review decision dated 8 March 2023 dismissed. The Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that ARY had been the victim of a crime of violence.
• Principal Judge of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal: On 11 December 2023, ARY’s request to set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was refused.