50288 (16 August 2022)

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

In the matter of an application under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted

Decision of a Single Member

Name of applicant: [ ]

Application number: 50288

Date of incident: [ ]

Date of application: [ ]

Decision outcome: The application is refused under Article 1 and Article 9 of the Scheme.

1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).

2. The applicant submitted an application for compensation under the Scheme, which was received on the [ ] in respect of an incident on the [ ].

3. The applicant had previously notified the Tribunal on the [ ] of his intention to bring an application for compensation for the injuries which he says occurred at [ ], when he was attacked by three individuals, [ ] and [ ]. He was attacked by [ ] and then the other two assailants rushed in behind and attacked him. He was then struck with [ ].

4. The applicant was [ ] years of age at the time of the incident.

5. The report from An Garda Síochána, dated the [ ], states that [ ], was charged with assault causing harm to the applicant. The jury failed to reach a verdict. A retrial took place on the [ ] and the case was withdrawn from the jury and dismissed.

6. The applicant was presented by [ ] Solicitors. They were written to on the [ ], by the Secretariat seeking details of the alleged dental treatment required by the applicant including a medical report from the applicant’s treating dentist. The Solicitors were written to on the [ ] with a copy of the garda report. The Solicitors attention was drawn to Article 14 of the Scheme in that communication.

7. They were invited to comment on what was stated regarding the applicant’s previous convictions under Article 14.

8. No response was received. The Solicitors were written to again on the [ ]. It was pointed out to them, at that stage, that documentation was required including original receipts and vouching documentation in relation to the out-of-pocket expenses arising from the personal injuries. They were also informed that if the Tribunal did not hear from them, that the file would be sent to a single member for decision.

9. To date, no communication has been received from them.

10. Article 9 (previously Article 10)of the scheme provides “no compensation will be payable unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the injury is such that compensation of not less than €63 (previously £50) should be awarded”. Under the revised scheme this is now €500 but the earlier scheme applies in respect of this application.

11. No details of any special damages have been submitted by the applicant in support of his claim.

12. As per Article 9, the Tribunal must be satisfied that damages of not less than €63 should be awarded. No such details have been furnished. The Tribunal is not satisfied that damages in excess of €63 should be awarded.

13. This Tribunal must also consider Article 1, which provides as follows “the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal established under paragraph 16 of the Scheme may pay compensation in accordance with the scheme in respect of personal injury where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence etc”. It is noted that the only party charged in connection with this matter has not been convicted of a crime of violence.

14. In addition, under the previous Article 21 of the Scheme (now Article 20) provides “application should be made as soon as possible but in except in circumstances determined by the Tribunal to justify exceptional treatment, not later than three months after the event giving rise to the injury”.

15. The applicant has not submitted any explanation for the delay in making the application, although it is noted that the Tribunal was notified on [ ], of the intended application.

16. The Tribunal does not propose to make any decision in relation to Article 20 (previously Article 21).

17. The Tribunal, however, is not satisfied that the claim does not come within the ambit of the scheme by virtue of Article 1 and by virtue of Article 9 and accordingly the application is dismissed.

Martin G Lawlor

Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

16 August 2022