Success at Upper Tribunal for Louis Browne KC and David Illingworth in two criminal injuries compensation cases

September 22, 2025

Louis Browne KC and David Illingworth from Exchange Chambers, instructed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) have succeeded in two Upper Tribunal cases touching on the interpretation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

The first, R(CICA) v First-tier Tribunal and GE (interested party)(CIC), centred on whether a dog attack arising from negligent supervision of the animal could constitute a “crime of violence” within the scheme. It is believed that this is the first decision at Upper Tribunal level to consider whether animal attacks fall within the scope of the 2012 Scheme.

The Upper Tribunal found that the 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 did 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 had 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. The FTT’s decision was quashed, and the case was remitted to a newly constituted First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration. ​

The second case, HJ v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) with CICA as interested party, provides important guidance on the definition of a “qualifying relative” of a victim who dies as a result of violent crime. The Applicant (‘H’) was a young woman whose male partner (‘J’) tragically sustained fatal injuries in a stabbing incident. J’s assailant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. H made a claim for a bereavement payment under the Scheme.

The test was whether H had been “living with [J] in the same household and had done so for a continuous period of at least two years immediately before the date of the death” or whether H “did not live with the deceased because of either person’s ill-health or infirmity” within paragraph 59(c).

Defending a challenge to the decision of the FTT, which had held that H did not meet the “qualifying relative test”, Louis and David successfully argued that the test included both a cohabitation requirement and a relationship requirement, both of which had to be satisfied for a person to be a qualifying relative. The exception for partners who did not cohabit due to ill-health or infirmity applied only to the cohabitation requirement. On the facts, H and J did not satisfy the relationship requirement for the requisite two-year period. The Upper Tribunal refused the application for judicial review of the FTT’s decision, rejecting all grounds raised by H. It held that the FTT had not erred in law, its factual findings were reasonable, and its interpretation of the Scheme was correct. ​ The decision confirmed that H was not eligible for compensation.