CJ v First Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) (JR): [2016] UKUT 7 (AAC) ; [2019] AACR 5
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Lane on 31 December 2015.
Read the full decision in
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority appealed to the Court of Appeal and this decision is reported as
Judicial Summary
Criminal Injuries Compensation Schemes – Paragraph 56 – Scope of the power to reopen a decision
The Interested Party Mr Christopher Jones (CJ) had made a number of applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). In August 1999 CJ made a claim arising from his having been the victim of an assault in 1998. This application was rejected in February 2000. In September 2002 CJ applied for a review of that decision however CICA decided not to waive the 90-day time limit. CJ then asked for his claim to be reopened. In rejecting the application CICA relied on two grounds under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996. The first was under paragraph 13(e) on the basis of CJ’s character and secondly under paragraph 56 on the basis that CJ’s condition had not materially changed. CJ appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT). The F-tT decided that it needed the original evidence filed in the 1999 claim and gave directions for the production of medical records and a medical report. It nonetheless directed a reduction of 75% under paragraph 13(e) if the case was subsequently reopened. The appeal was later struck out as there had been no original award of compensation, the case could not be re-opened. CJ applied to the UT for judicial review. The UT judge quashing the F-tT decision, held that there was no basis on which the tribunal could have decided that there should be a 75% reduction in compensation if there was a reopening when it had not yet been determined that the claim should be reopened and where the question of reduction in compensation would, at least initially, be one for the CICA. The CICA appealed against that decision and the issue before the Court of Appeal was, whether a claims officer is required to reopen a case where there has been a material change in the applicant’s medical condition even though the officer considers that applicant would be disentitled to compensation for some other reason. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the purpose of the power to reopen is the prevention of injustice. Paragraph 56 on its true construction does not compel the reopening of a decision where the maintenance of the original decision would not create an injustice. In order to reopen a case, an officer must be satisfied that if the original assessment was allowed to stand there would be an injustice and that the injustice would be caused by a change in the applicant’s medical condition. It is not sufficient for there to be a medical change if for some other reason there would be no injustice if the decision stood, and in such circumstances, there is no power to reopen the case (paragraph 4); 2. the correct questions for the decision-maker are: Would there be injustice if the earlier decision remained in place and would that injustice be the result of a change in the applicant’s medical condition? If the answer to both these questions is ‘yes’ the officer may, and no doubt in practice will, reopen the case (paragraph 27); 3. an officer carrying out a review of a decision not to reopen the case can only have the powers of the original claims officer under paragraph 56 (paragraph 29); 4. the UT was correct to quash the decisions of the F-tT, but that its interpretation of the nature of the CICA’s power to reopen a claim cannot be upheld (paragraph 31).
Last updated 4 August 2020 + show all updates
-
Reported as [2019] AACR 5
-
First published.