Edward Lamb secures a maximum award under the 2008 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme for an injured appellant

News | Fri 17th Jun, 2022

DJ v. CICA (First Tier Tribunal), 15 June 2022

Appearing in the First Tier Tribunal on appeal of a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Edward Lamb secured the maximum award of £500,000 for a catastrophically injured appellant.

The appellant, having sought political asylum in the UK, was shot a number of times in a case of mistaken identity in Liverpool. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority originally awarded him, on review, £115,000.  

Edward successful argued that the characterisation of care needs required under paragraph 35 of the 2008 Scheme should be looked at ‘holistically’ and in line with the decision of R(CR) v First-tier Tribunal [2021] UKUT 106 (AAC). Moreover the lack of local authority engagement in conducting a care act assessment to assess what care may have been available, was not a bar to the FTT awarding care costs in this case. The FTT found that the appellant had discharged the burden of trying to obtain such and assessment, and in circumstances where the local authority had carried out only a brief occupational health assessment that indicated there were no care needs, this was sufficient to permit a care claim being pursued. The FTT also considered whether an adjournment was necessary to permit a full assessment, but concluded this would cause a significant and unfair delay in light of the currently stretched local authority recourses.

Further the FTT determined that the appellant was eligible for loss of earnings on the basis of his but for earnings, supported by an employment expert’s report. Of note was the indication in the hearing that the CICA had an internal policy document that stated that if any appellant was unable to show any past loss of earnings information (i.e. pay slips), then even where the appellant could establish a loss of earning capacity, the CICA would make no offer for past loss of earnings. This, it was submitted, was not only unfair (in relying on a policy document neither disclosed to the FTT nor the appellant) but inconsistent with the wording of the 2008 Scheme (It remains to be seen whether, in light of this Judgment, this policy will continue to be applied).

Having considered the appellant’s submissions, the FTT found that his compensation far exceeded the statutory cap and therefore awarded him £500,000.

Edward was instructed by Mitesh Patel, Owner and Principle at Drake and Case solicitors.