Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Respondent served in the Royal Air Force from January 2008 to May 2020, after which he was discharged at his own request. In November 2020, while serving an 18-month custodial sentence at the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) as a civilian subject to service discipline, he sustained an injury to his left hand while moving furniture under orders. The Tribunal initially ruled the injury was caused by service, but the Upper Tribunal overturned this decision, concluding that the Respondent was not in service at the time of the injury and that the injury was not legally attributable to his service.
Issues
The primary legal issue was determining if an injury to a former service member, sustained while serving a custodial sentence at the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) as a civilian subject to service discipline, could be classified as 'caused by service' under Article 8 of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS). The Tribunal initially concluded the injury was service-caused due to the military setting and obligations, but the Upper Tribunal overturned this, emphasizing that the respondent was not a member of the forces at the time of injury and that service only provided the context, not the cause.
Holdings
The injury to the Respondent's left hand was not caused by service.
Remedies
- The decision is remade, concluding that the injury to the Respondent's left hand was not caused by service, thus no compensation is payable under the AFCS.
- The Tribunal's decision dated 13 March 2024 is set aside because it contained an error in the interpretation of the law regarding service causation.
- The appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber) is allowed, overturning the original decision and remanding it for reconsideration.
Legal Principles
The injury to the Respondent's left hand was not caused by service because he was no longer a member of the armed forces at the time. The court emphasized that being subject to service discipline as a civilian in a military prison does not establish a legal causal connection to service. The principle of distinguishing between 'service cause' and 'service setting' was critical, as the injury resulted from compliance with detention rules, not service obligations.
Precedent Name
- Richards v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- JM v Secretary of State for Defence (AFCS)
- Quinn v. Burch Bros. (Builders) Ltd.
- Alexander v. Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd.
- Monaghan v Minister of Pensions
- Horsfall v Minister of Pensions
- Giles v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Wedderspoon v Minister of Pensions
- NJ v Secretary of State for Defence (AFCS)
Cited Statute
- Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
- Service Custody and Service of Relevant Sentences Rules 2009
- Armed Forces Act 2006
- Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011
Judge Name
Judge Mark West
Passage Text
- The decision of the First-tier Tribunal ... contains an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside.
- The injury to the Respondent's left hand was not caused by service.
- The Respondent ... was not in service at the time of the injury. Service provided the setting but not the cause of the injury.