KH, R (on the application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (Criminal Injuries Compensation) (CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION: reduction and withholding of awards) [2026] UKUT 39 (AAC) (28 January 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal quashed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision upholding CICA’s withholding of a criminal injuries compensation award under paragraph 25 of the 2012 Scheme. It held that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by refusing to consider CCTV evidence in breach of the overriding objective, and by making inadequate and perverse findings of fact, and remitted the case for a fresh oral rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

Key points

• Applicant: KH; respondents: First-Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) and CICA as interested party.
• CICA had withheld an award under paragraph 25 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 because of the applicant’s conduct during the incident.
• Upper Tribunal found legal error in the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to admit short, relevant CCTV evidence brought to the hearing.
• Upper Tribunal also found inadequate and perverse factual findings.
• Decision quashed under section 15(1)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and remitted under section 17(1)(a).
• No sanctions/export-control issue is engaged on the face of the decision; the relevance is procedural and evidential rather than geopolitical.

Why it matters

This decision is relevant to sovereign-risk and public-law monitoring because it shows the Upper Tribunal enforcing fair hearing standards against a state compensation body and a specialist tribunal. There is no direct sanctions or export-control content, but the case matters for how administrative decisions are challenged when evidence handling and fact-finding are attacked.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the key point is that specialist tribunals deciding compensation-withholding cases must engage with relevant evidence and give factually sustainable reasons, especially where the claimant is unrepresented. CICA and similar bodies should expect remittal where refusal to consider readily available evidence or weak factual findings compromises the decision, and parties should preserve short, material media evidence for first-instance hearings rather than relying on judicial review to cure omission.