Publication
F/52730 (18 September 2023)
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted - General Scheme
Appeal of [ ]
Application number: F/52730
Name of applicant: [ ]
Name of deceased: [ ]
Date of incident: [ ]
Date application received: [ ]
Decision: No award.
The Appellant applied to the Tribunal on behalf of herself and [ ]. [ ] was the victim of a crime of violence which occurred on [ ] when he was shot dead on [ ]. [ ] was walking with [ ] when a lone gunman approached him from behind and shot him in the [ ]. The gunman fled on foot, and a man was convicted of the murder of [ ] on [ ].
A single member of the Tribunal made a determination in the Appellant’s case at first instance by decision dated [ ] (though it was dated [ ]). The Appellant exercised her right under Paragraph 25 of the Scheme to appeal this decision by way of hearing by three members of the Tribunal.
A division of three members of the Tribunal was appointed to hear the appeal. This division of the Tribunal sat remotely on the [ ] to hear the appeal. The Appellant was in attendance. The Tribunal considered the case afresh (or de novo), taking into account the bundle of appeal papers of 47 pages, oral evidence and the submissions made by the Applicant in the course of the hearing.
The General Scheme provides that the Tribunal may pay compensation for out-of-pocket expenses in respect of personal injury, where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence, subject to the provisions of the scheme. Amounts claimed must be vouched and/or supported by appropriate documentation. In addition to out-of-pocket expenses, the Tribunal may make payment by way of solatium to the dependents of a deceased person in cases involving fatal incidents. The Tribunal is entirely responsible for deciding in any particular case whether compensation is payable under the scheme.
Paragraph 21 of the General Scheme (pre-April 2021) states that “Applications should be made as soon as possible but, except in circumstances determined by the Tribunal to justify exceptional treatment, not later than three months after the event giving rise to the injury”. In this case, the application was received on [ ], almost 3 years after the murder and outside the specified period of three months. This division of the Tribunal must therefore determine whether circumstances arise in this particular case which justify exceptional treatment.
The Applicant stated in correspondence with the Tribunal that she suffered from anxiety, panic attacks and agoraphobia and had been traumatised by the trial of her son’s murder [ ].
In the hearing, the Applicant outlined that she had been on medication for depression. She stated that she attends a doctor for her panic attacks. She had previously been referred to a psychiatrist. She outlined the nature and extent of the trauma caused by her son’s murder.
The Tribunal accepts that the murder of her son had a significant and traumatic effect on the Applicant, and that she has suffered, and continues to suffer, a range of mental health effects. These were compounded by the murder trial of the perpetrator [ ]. Although the three year delay between the incident and the submission of the application is long, in all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the circumstances of the case are such as to justify exceptional treatment, and admits the application for consideration.
Dependents are defined in Section 47 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 as amended.
The Tribunal notes that the application indicates the following dependents in this case:
[ ] – Mother
[ ] –
[ ] –
[ ] –
[ ] -
[ ] ([ ]) –
[ ] ([ ]) -
The Application indicates that the Appellant incurred Funeral Expenses of €6,375, cremation costs of €230 and cost of refreshments of €1,200. A bereavement grant was received by the Appellant in the sum of €2,000.
No claim was made for loss of financial dependency.
In addition to the foregoing, the Tribunal may award solatium in a fatal case, subject to a capped statutory amount, in respect of mental distress.
The Appellant gave evidence in the course of the appeal hearing. She stated that her son had been killed when walking with [ ]. She outlined that she had been “going through a lot” which explained the delay in the submission of the application, and outlined her health difficulties. She stated that she had attended medical professionals and had been on anti-depressant medication. She had been referred to a psychiatrist.
She didn’t know what to do, and knew that any application wouldn’t bring back her son, but wanted to do it for her children and grandchildren.
When asked about the motive for her son’s murder, she stated [ ]. She stated that her son was interested in football and his children. He had served time in prison over [ ], and was remorseful. His second prison sentence was for [ ]. The person he had an argument with wanted to drop the case but it was too close to the trial date. He had also served [ ]. The Tribunal asked in particular regarding the [ ] year sentence of his [ ] convictions, from [ ], and the Applicant stated that this was for [ ]. He had served [ ] years of the sentence and was released in [ ]. When he was released he was spending time with his children and playing football. He was in prison for one continuous period of time, including another sentence of [ ] years for [ ].
The Appellant confirmed details of the statutory dependents in this case and confirmed particulars of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred.
Paragraph 14 of the General Scheme (pre-April 2021) states that “No compensation will be payable where the Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct of the victim, his character or his way of life make it inappropriate that he should be granted an award and the Tribunal may reduce the amount of an award where, in its opinion, it is appropriate to do so having regard to the conduct, character or way of life of the victim.”
The Tribunal has considered the contents of a report from Garda [ ] dated [ ] and notes that [ ] had [ ] convictions recorded against him at the time of his death, including [ ]:
[ ] was shot and killed in a planned murder on [ ]. The incident was clearly a crime of violence resulting in fatal injury and one which may be considered under the terms of the Scheme. The completed application in this case was received on the [ ], outside the three month period specified in the Scheme. However, the Tribunal accepts, for the reasons outlined in this decision, that circumstances arise in this case which justify exceptional treatment.
The Tribunal must, thereafter, consider the particulars and facts of the case under the terms of the Scheme. The Tribunal has carefully considered the terms of Paragraph 14 of the Scheme prior to the amendment of the Scheme in [ ]. The same provision is set out in Paragraph 13 of the current version of the Scheme without amendment.
[ ] had a long history of significant criminal activity, being convicted of [ ] offences, and had served a lengthy custodial sentence.
The Tribunal has considered the provisions of Para. 14 of the Scheme (pre-April 2021). Given the criminal history of Mr. [ ], the Tribunal considers that the conduct, character and way of life of the victim in this case was such that it would be inappropriate to make an award.
Accordingly, the Tribunal makes no award in this case.
Dated 18 September 2023.
Roderick Maguire, Elizabeth Davey, Georgina Robinson