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

Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, a tribunal must consider whether informal disclosures to police amount to reporting an incident for paragraph 22. It errs in law if it discounts those disclosures without addressing that question. The error may be material where the reporting finding affects the claim deadline and the discretion to extend time under paragraph 89. In assessing materiality, the tribunal should recognise that processing childhood sexual abuse and taking steps to disclose it or claim compensation may not be straightforward. Whether an extension is justified remains for the tribunal to determine under the Scheme’s criteria.

KJV sought compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 for sexual abuse by her father during childhood. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refused her claim because it considered that the incident had not been reported to police as soon as reasonably practicable. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal on 25 November 2024. It had found that KJV disclosed the abuse to police officers while intoxicated and under arrest in 2011, but did not repeat the disclosures in a formal statement the following day. KJV applied for compensation in 2023 and made a formal police complaint in 2024. On judicial review, the Upper Tribunal considered whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred by failing to consider whether the informal disclosures met paragraph 22, and whether any error could affect the outcome given the Scheme’s time-extension discretion.

The judicial review claim was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was quashed under section 15(1)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the matter was remitted under section 17(1)(a) for an oral rehearing before a fresh panel.

1. Paragraph 22 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 requires the incident to be reported to police as soon as reasonably practicable. The Scheme does not explain what a report must involve. Having found that KJV made informal disclosures to police officers in 2011, the First-tier Tribunal had to consider whether those disclosures amounted to a report. Its failure to address that question, and its apparent treatment of a formal statement as necessary, was an error of law.

2. The error was material. Paragraph 87 sets the general application deadline, while paragraph 88(1)(b) provides a two-year period from the first police report where the applicant was a child when the incident occurred and reported it on or after turning 18. Paragraph 89 permits an extension where exceptional circumstances prevented an earlier application and the evidence allows the claim to be determined without further extensive enquiries. The First-tier Tribunal had not considered that discretion. The Upper Tribunal observed that processing childhood sexual abuse and taking steps to disclose it or claim compensation may not be straightforward. It did not decide whether KJV met paragraph 89’s criteria or was entitled to an award.

3. An error is material where the outcome might have been substantially different without it. The possible availability of an extension meant the reporting error could not be treated as immaterial.

4. Further facts were required, so the First-tier Tribunal was the appropriate forum for redetermination. The fresh panel is not bound by the earlier decision and may reach the same or a different result. The Upper Tribunal determined the judicial review on the papers; KJV may give evidence and make submissions at the remitted oral hearing.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — On judicial review, allowed the claim, quashed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter for an oral rehearing before a fresh panel: [2026] UKUT 345 (AAC) .
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) — Dismissed KJV’s appeal from the Authority’s refusal and confirmed that decision on 25 November 2024. A later application to set aside was admitted but refused by a decision dated 2 May 2025, issued on 7 May 2025.