Publication
54126 (17 May 2022)
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
Decision of an Appeal Panel
In Private
Name of applicant: [ ]
Application number: 54126
Date of incident: [ ]
Date received: [ ]
Heard on: [ ]
Location: The appeal was conducted remotely in accordance with Instruction Number 2 issued by the Tribunal under paragraph 19 of the Scheme.
Appeal Panel: Ms Majella Twomey (Chair), Ms Elizabeth Maguire, Ms Elizabeth Davey.
Persons present and capacity: Ms. [ ]
Summary: The application is allowed under paragraph 21 of the scheme.
1. The Tribunal convened, in private, to consider an appeal brought by [ ] (‘the applicant’) under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. By a notice of appeal, received on the [ ], the Appellant appealed against the decision of a Single Member who, by a decision dated the [ ], refused the application for compensation relating to the fatal death of the Appellant’s brother on the grounds that it was out of time. The Single Member refused to admit the application for consideration under the Scheme as it was made outside the three-month time limit and the Single Member decided that there were no exceptional circumstances outlined as to why the applicant had not applied in time.
3. On the [ ], the Appellant’s brother [ ] was murdered [ ] by a person known to him and an accomplice. There is a Garda report on file dated the [ ], detailing the said crime and stating that the perpetrator had received a life sentence, following [ ] different criminal trials. [ ]. The murder accomplice served [ ] months in custody. The deceased had no previous convictions. No compensation was paid.
4. At the appeal, the Tribunal indicated to [ ] that there was no question but that her brother had been the victim of a crime of violence and that the Tribunal did not need to hear further details on that issue. The Tribunal expressed its sympathies to the Appellant in this respect. The Tribunal said that the central issue, in this instance, was that the application ought to have been lodged on or before the [ ]. The application was received by the Tribunal on the [ ], which was almost three years after the three-month time period had elapsed.
5. As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal raised the late submission, by the applicant, of the application for compensation under the Scheme. The Tribunal had in mind paragraph 21 of the Scheme which provides as follows:
‘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.’
6. The Appellant provided the Tribunal with two GPs’ letters dated [ ] and the [ ]. The letters refer to the Appellant being under severe stress and being overwhelmed and they state that the Appellant was not able to return to her studies in [ ] following the traumatic event of the death of her brother.
7. The Appellant provided a further letter from her psychotherapist which echoes the details in the GP reports and which state that the Appellant’s cognitive function was impaired following the murder of her brother.
8. Furthermore, the Appellant supplied a letter from [ ], Psychiatrist dated the [ ], which states that the Appellant was suffering from chronic severe, depressive disorder.
9. The Appellant, herself, gave evidence to the Tribunal that she had been unaware of the CICT scheme, and she did not even imagine there was such a scheme in existence. She said the first she had heard of it was on a radio show in [ ]. The Appellant said that when she became aware of the scheme, she went to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau and sent in an application as quickly as she could.
10. The Appellant said that she suffered severe depression and anxiety following the death of her brother. She could not concentrate and could not return to college. She said that the criminal proceedings were extremely difficult as the culprits could not be found, initially, and then the family had to go through [ ] separate criminal trials.
11. Furthermore, the Appellant said that her other brother died tragically in [ ], and his body was found in [ ].
12. The Appellant said that she has [ ] other siblings who have all waived their rights in relation to the scheme and these waivers are on the Tribunal file. The names of these siblings are [ ].
13. The Appellant said that the deceased did not have any other dependents.
14. The Appellant provided vouched funeral expenses in the sum of €10,231.80 from the Funeral Directors and €980 for the headstone.
15. The Appellant’s brother was murdered, and the perpetrator was given a mandatory life sentence. The Tribunal finds that the deceased died as a result of a crime of violence.
16. The application in this case was not submitted within three months of the event giving rise to the death of the deceased.
17. The Tribunal carefully considered all the reasons advanced to determine whether they were such as to justify exceptional treatment for admission under the Scheme. These reasons included the medical reports, the written submissions filed by the Appellant and the evidence and submissions made by her at the hearing.
18. Having weighed and evaluated all the evidence before it, the Tribunal was persuaded that the reasons advanced were such as to justify exceptional treatment. The Appellant put forward an accumulation of reasons, in this regard, including the diagnosis of a severe chronic depressive disorder following the event, the tragic death of another brother, the severe stress and cognitive impairment, as outlined in the medical reports, coupled with having to engage in [ ] different criminal trials. The Tribunal gives significant weight to the psychiatric report of Dr [ ] in respect of the Appellant’s mental state post the death of her brother.
19. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has advanced reasons which would justify exceptional treatment for admission to the Scheme.
20. This is not relevant in this case as the deceased had no previous convictions.
21. The Tribunal makes the following award to Appellant.
Funeral expenses - €10,231.80
Headstone - €980
22. Paragraph 6 of the (pre-2021 Scheme) states that “Subject to the limitations and re-strictions contained elsewhere in this Scheme, the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal will be on the basis of damages awarded under the Civil Liabilities Acts. Therefore, where a claim is made under the Fatal Injury Scheme, the Tribunal must have regard to Section 49(1A)(b) of the Civil Liability Act, 1961. While it would be impossible to financially compensate a family for such a tragic loss, Section 49(1A)(b) of the Civil Liability Act, 1961 provides for a modest maximum payment of €35,000 to the surviving dependants in respect of compensation for mental distress resulting from wrongful death (hereinafter called the “solatium”).
23. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant should be awarded the full Solatium of €35,000 in circumstances where the other dependents have waived their entitlements.
24. The Tribunal awards the Appellant the sum of €10,231.80 plus €980 for funeral expenses and headstone expenses.
25. The Tribunal also awards the Appellant the full Solatium of €35,000.
26. The Tribunal therefore awards a total of €46,211.80.
Majella Twomey
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
For and on behalf of the Appeal Panel of the Tribunal
17 May 2022