Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)

4. Mr G complains about the actions of the CICA from February 2021 to June 2023. Mr G says:

• CICA failed to properly review and consider the evidence he submitted, including clinical files demonstrating he suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for approximately 9 months, which led to an incorrect application of its policy when assessing specific elements of the crime and PTSD, and ultimately led it to award the wrong level of compensation • CICA failed to offer Mr G access to a psychologist who could provide a clinical diagnosis in relation to the PTSD he suffered as a result of the crime

5. Because of CICA’s actions, Mr G felt retraumatised. He has suffered stress, anxiety, and sleepless nights.

6. As an outcome of this complaint, Mr G would like CICA to reconsider the level of compensation he was awarded.

7. Mr G was the victim of a crime in December 2020. As a result of this crime, Mr G tells us he suffered PTSD (a mental health condition that happens after very stressful, frightening, or distressing events), concussion, and 17 other separate injuries.

8. Mr G applied to CICA for compensation in February 2021 and was awarded £2,000 in February 2022. Mr G says he does not believe CICA considered all the relevant information when reaching its decision, particularly documents he submitted from his private counsellor. Mr G was also concerned he had not been offered a review by CICA’s clinical psychologists, who he says can offer a free clinical diagnosis. He believes this was an oversight that did not allow CICA to make the correct decision in his case.

9. In March 2022, Mr G requested a review of CICA’s decision, which agreed with the award of £2,000 in October 2022. CICA received a notice of appeal from Mr G in November 2022 which agreed with the award of £2,000 in February 2023. Mr G accepted this award in May 2023, following a First-Tier Tribunal decision in his case.

10. Mr G appealed this decision, and his case was sent to an Upper Tribunal. The Tribunal did not uphold Mr G’s case or increase the award for the crime he suffered or impacts he told the Tribunal he faced because of that crime, such as PTSD.

11. Mr G commenced a Judicial Review of the Upper Tribunal’s decision. The Judge struck this out as Mr G had already accepted the First Tier Tribunal’s award. The Judge commented because Mr G had accepted this award, the Upper Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider this.

14. CICA was set up to provide compensation to victims of crime. It is an agency of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and can make awards from £1,000 to £500,000. The aim is to help those who have been mentally or physically injured from violent crime.

15. Our role is to investigate whether an organisation has acted in line with applicable guidelines and standards, and done so properly or fairly, or if it has given poor service and not put things right. If we decide that the organisation got things wrong and that has had a negative effect on the person, we can make recommendations for remedy. However, this role does not extend to reconsidering legal findings or acting as an additional stage of statutory appeal.

16. This means we could consider whether CICA acted in line with its relevant guidelines and standards when it considered Mr G’s claim, including the provision of psychology review. Given that Mr G is ultimately looking for a view that the award given was wrong, and as he is looking for an increase in that award, we have thought carefully about whether there is anything such a consideration by our Office might achieve for him.

17. Where someone considers an award by CICA is incorrect, it is open to them to follow a statutory route of appeal to a tribunal. We can see Mr G followed this route and a tribunal confirmed the award was appropriate. We cannot act as an alternative route of appeal or overturn a decision which has been made by a court or tribunal, which is the situation in this case. Simply put, we are not able to give a view Mr G suffered an injustice as a result of CICA handling his application poorly, as that would require us to give a view that the award was wrong, which it would not be appropriate for us to do. The Tribunal has already given a view that the award was correct, and we have no role to revisit matters which have been considered in that forum. We are also therefore unable to achieve the change of award Mr G is looking for.

18. Our role is limited to investigating maladministration and service failure, rather than to reconsider legal disputes or revisit award decisions reached via judicial proceedings. Where a matter has been fully considered and decided within the court or tribunal system, it is not our role to challenge or circumvent the outcome. To do this, a person would have to follow the appropriate legal process, such as an appeal or judicial review, which Mr G did in this case.

19. With the above in mind, we have decided we cannot take further action to consider this complaint. We understand this decision will be disappointing for Mr G, especially given the time and effort he has invested in pursuing this matter. We hope this explanation clearly sets out why we cannot consider his concerns further and helps him understand how we reached our decision.

1. We have carefully considered Mr G’s complaint about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). We were very sorry to hear about his experience as a victim of a crime, which clearly remains very upsetting to him.

2. We can see we cannot give a view that any actions by CICA in its handling of his claim led to the impact Mr G describes of feeling re-traumatised and suffering stress, anxiety, and sleepless nights as a result of the award he was given, which was considered by a tribunal. As such, we are not able to achieve Mr G’s desired outcome of instructing CICA to reconsider the level of compensation he was awarded.

3. We explain the factors we have thought about in our consideration of this complaint below, and we hope this is helpful to Mr G in understanding how we reached our decision.