R (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) v First-tier Tribunal and GE (CIC): [2025] UKUT 262 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Wright on 04 August 2025.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
This decision is about the basis on which the person who has been attacked by a dog may (or may not) qualify for an award under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012.
To be eligible for an award under the 2012 Scheme the person has to have sustained “a criminal injury which is directly attributable to their being a direct victim of a crime of violence”. A “crime of violence” is defined (for the first time) in the 2012 Scheme as being a crime which involves, inter alia, a physical attack or any other attack or omission of a violent nature which causes physical injury to a person. However, such an act or omission will not amount to a crime of violence unless it is done either intentionally or recklessly. But even if the dog attack does qualify on this basis as a crime of violence, it will not be considered to have been a crime of violence under the 2012 Scheme if the injury resulted from an animal attack, unless the animal was used with intent to cause injury to a person.
This decision decides, first, that the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) erred in law in deciding that a crime under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 could constitute a crime of violence under the 2012 Scheme. This is because section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has created an offence of strict liability and as such does not involve any act (or omission) done either intentionally or recklessly. Secondly, even if the relevant crime could have been one committed under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (which the FTT did not address), the FTT further erred in law in failing to provide an adequate explanation on the evidence as to why the dog had been used with intent to cause injury to a person.