50969 (12 September 2023)

Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

In the matter of an appeal under paragraph 24 of the scheme of compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted

Decision of an Appeal Panel

In private

Name of appellant: [ ]

Application number: 50969

Date of incident: [ ]

Date of application: [ ]

Heard on: [ ]

Location: The Appeal was conducted remotely in accordance with Instruction no. 2 issued by the Tribunal under paragraph 19 of the scheme.

Appeal Panel: Damian Sheridan B.L. (Chair); Peter Stafford B.L. and Mema Byrne B.L.

Persons present and capacity: [ ] was present and represented himself.

1. The Appeal Panel (“the panel) convened in private, to consider an appeal brought by [ ] under the scheme of compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted (“the scheme”).

2. The panel had before it an appeal hearing bundle number pages 1 through to 62.

3. By Notice of Appeal dated the [ ] the Appellant appealed against the decision of a single member who, by a decision dated the [ ] had made an award of €3,380.

4. Corroboratory evidence was provided by An Garda Siochana along with the statements provided by the Appellant himself and allowed the appeal panel to conclude that the Appellant was, on the [ ], socialising in a public house when he encountered a number of gentlemen who, for no good reason pursued him when he left the public house and proceeded to assault him. The Appellant was held by two of the individuals whilst a third individual headbutted him. After the Appellant fell to the ground he was kicked on the ground by the assailants. Whilst a Garda investigation was launched there was a fatal inability to bring a prosecution in circumstances where the Appellant himself was unable to definitively say that the persons who were brought to his attention by members of An Garda Siochana as the potential assailants were the persons he encountered on the night.

5. The Appellant gave evidence of his attendance as in inpatient in hospital on the [ ] and the [ ]. He was treated both in the County Hospital [ ] and the Regional Hospital [ ]. He was required to be transferred to the hospital in the city because he underwent surgery for the insertion of two plates into his face area, a titanium plate in or around and above his eye and one around his cheekbone on the [ ] of his face. The Appellant indicated that he was left with no feeling in his face for a period of two to three years post-incident and that since that time his nose is blocked very easily.

6. At the time of his injury the Appellant had the benefit of a medical insurance scheme. As a result he incurred very limited expenses in relation to his medical care, save six trips to his G.P. at a cost per visit of €30.

7. In terms of travel expenses, the Appellant confirmed that the G.P. he was attending at that stage was only 2 – 3 miles away from his home however he did also attend a Professor who had operated on his face in [ ] Hospital. The distance between his home and [ ] Hospital is between 35 and 40 miles.

8. The Appellant confirmed that the business accounts provided to the Tribunal for the years [ ], [ ] and [ ] were accurate. They recorded that his personal income after the deduction of taxation in [ ] equated to €571 per week, in [ ] amounted to €526 and that in [ ] amounted to €795 per week.

9. The Appellant confirmed that following on from the occurrence of this incident he did not feel confident in continuing to operate as a [ ]. He was not happy facing the public on his own and was unsure of what was going to happen bearing in mind the injuries he had suffered. He was lucky that another [ ] offered him a job. From that time he was no longer [ ] and found himself more [ ] based. The Appellant has confirmed that when he took up the other job there was no loss of income. The Appellant has confirmed that he took up the new job in or about 2 months after the incident occurred.

10. The incident occurred in [ ] and through no fault of the Appellant the decision of first instance was not determined until [ ].

11. The appeal panel have identified the Appellant as someone who qualifies under the scheme for compensation in circumstances where he is the victim of a crime of violence from which he has suffered personal injury.

12. The appeal panel are satisfied that the victim was not responsible, through provocation or otherwise, for the events giving rise to his injuries and indeed took every opportunity to retreat from his assailants.

13. Furthermore the appeal panel is satisfied that the conduct of the victim, his character and\or his way of life were not in any way something which could be considered inappropriate such that he should not be granted an award and the appeal panel specifically identified the statement of An Garda Siochana that the Appellant was a man of good character.

14. Accordingly the Tribunal make the following award in respect of the Appellant.

15. In respect of the six attendances with his G.P. at €30 per visit and award is made of €180.

16. In respect of the travel expenses incurred by the Appellant in attending his G.P. and in attending [ ] Hospital the appeal panel make an award of €200.

17. Taking the weekly income of the Appellant in [ ] at €571 per week, in [ ] at €526 per week and in [ ] €795 per week the appeal panel calculated the mean average income over the three year period as an amount of €630 per week. The Appellant suffered a loss of earnings over a period of eight weeks and as a result the appeal panel make an award of €5,040 to reflect this loss of earnings.

18. In the specific circumstances of this case as outlined in evidence, the Tribunal are going to apply Courts’ Act interest to the loss of earnings figure to reflect distance in time between the occurrence of the loss of earnings which concluded in [ ] and the hearing of the appeal [ ].

19. Between [ ] and the [ ] a period of [ ], Courts’ Act interest was at 8% simple interest. This equates to a figure of €3,427.20.

20. From the [ ] up until [ ] a period of [ ] Courts’ Act interest rested at 2% simple interest resulting in an award of €680.40.

21. Thus the overall award to be made in favour of the Appellant by the appeal panel is an amount of €9,527.60.

Signed:

Damian Sheridan B.L.

Chair, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

For and on behalf of the Appeal Panel

12 September 2023