Court Rules CICA Can Accept Claims of Non-Physical Sexual Abuse

At a recent hearing, the Court of Appeal decided that the victim in a case of non-touching sexual abuse is eligible for criminal injuries compensation.

In RN v CICA [2023] EWCA Civ 882 the Court overturned decisions of the Upper and First Tier Tribunals, to hold that a victim of sexual abuse that did not involve touching is a victim of a crime of violence under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (CICS). The case is now the lead authority on the definition of a crime of violence under the current Scheme which was revised in 2012.

The circumstances involved the victim, RN who, in 2014, met his abuser who was working at a gaming club he attended. RN added the abuser as a friend on Facebook and they began messaging. The abuser initially posed online as a girl of 14, then began a campaign of serious online sexual grooming and abuse. When RN realised that the identity was false, he became scared. The abuser knew where RN lived and where he went to school. He made threats towards him and RN feared for both his own and his family’s safety. There had been no physical contact at any stage.

After RN’s family reported the abuse to the Police, his abuser was prosecuted and convicted of attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity and attempting to meet a boy under 16 following sexual grooming. He was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

The whole experience traumatised RN and he suffered life changing mental injuries as a result.

An application was made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) for compensation. 

The Scheme was introduced to compensate blameless victims of violent crime and defines a ‘crime of violence’ as;

• a physical attack;
• any other act or omission of a violent nature which causes physical injury to a person;
• a threat against a person, causing fear of immediate violence in circumstances which would cause a person of reasonable firmness to be put in such fear;
• a sexual assault to which a person did not in fact consent

The CICA rejected RN’s initial application for compensation in November 2017, on the basis that he had not been physically injured and that he was not placed in fear of immediate harm.

That reasoning was in essence upheld by the First Tier and Upper Tribunals. They held that RN had not been subject to a criminal assault, a sexual assault, or an act or omission of a violent nature that caused him physical (as opposed to mental) injury.

However, the Court of Appeal held that RN:

1. Was subject to a crime of violence under 2(1)(c). The paragraph is to be interpreted in line with the criminal law of common assault which states there is no requirement in common law that there be no intervening physical space or lapse of time between a threat and a fear of immediate violence. The requirement of fear of immediate violence is a fear of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future.
2. Was not subject to a sexual assault within the meaning of 2(1)(d) which, in line with the definition of a sexual assault under s.3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,  requires touching..
3. It was unnecessary for the purposes of the appeal to determine whether the meaning of “physical injury” under 2(1)(b) includes psychiatric injury. 

The Court of Appeal’s judgment is particularly welcome in that it recognises the ever-increasing use of social media in today’s society as a tool by which to cause harm and widens the parameters in terms of the victim’s eligibility to receive damages for a violent crime.  

The decision goes some way towards the implementation of one of the recommendations from the recent Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) report which suggested that the current and arguably outdated Scheme should be extended when considering the definition of a ‘crime of violence’ to include other forms of child sexual abuse including online-facilitated sexual abuse to ensure that it is for the internet age.