Publication
10520 (10 March 2010)
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 for Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted Pre-1986
Applicant: [ ]
Claim Ref. No: 10520
The applicant herein claims that she was sexually assaulted [ ] [ ] on a number of occasions between [ ] and [ ] when she was between [ ] years of age. The Tribunal was notified of the claim on [ ] and the application form was received on [ ] outside the 3 month time limit provided for under Article 21 of the Scheme.
The abuse that the applicant suffered was not reported to the gardaí until [ ] some 30 years after the final instance of abuse and the day prior to the applicant's claim being notified to the Tribunal. In this regard, Article 23 of the Scheme is relevant. This provides that, "To qualify for compensation it will be necessary to indicate to the Tribunal that the offence giving rise to injury has been the subject of criminal proceedings or that it was reported to the gardaí without delay. However, the Tribunal will have the discretion to dispense with this requirement in the case of injuries resulting from offences committed before the commencement of the Scheme and in other cases where they are satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made by or on behalf of the claimant to notify the Garda Síochána of the offence and to cooperate with them."
The applicant was seen by [ ] Consultant Psychiatrist on behalf of the Tribunal on [ ] states in her report that the applicant underwent personal psychotherapy over a prolonged period of time. This included inpatient treatment in [ ] for addiction counselling and psychotherapy for her sexual abuse in the Rape Crisis Centre [ ]. Thereafter, the applicant attended a Consultant Psychiatrist for treatment for depression. She also underwent weekly psychotherapy after she moved [ ]. After [ ], the applicant attended [ ], Consultant Psychologist & Counsellor [ ] and also attended group therapy for women survivors of sexual abuse. [ ] states that the applicant had acknowledged the sexual abuse she was subjected to during her years of therapy, but never thought of reporting it until discussing her children's safety [ ], who raised the issue of reporting the abuse.
The applicant submitted a report from [ ] dated [ ] in support of her application. This report states that the applicant attended a number of therapists to help her deal with the sexual abuse she had suffered and came to [ ] for therapy, who she continued to attend for 2 years. [ ] confirms that when the applicant attended therapy, neither of them was aware of the scheme. [ ] also confirms that the applicant did not report the abuse until encouraged to do so by [ ] [ ] she attended in [ ] and that she then consulted her solicitor, who encouraged her to report the abuse to the gardaí.
Therefore, it is clear that the applicant had attended therapy over a long period of time to help her deal with the sexual abuse she suffered but at no stage did she report the abuse to the gardaí. It was only in [ ] that the applicant reported the sexual abuse to the gardaí. The gardaí have confirmed that no criminal proceedings were brought in this case. No reason has been advanced as to the delay of over 30 years in reporting the abuse to the gardaí, despite the fact that the applicant had been attending counselling in respect of the abuse for a prolonged period. Furthermore, no evidence has been advanced that all reasonable efforts were made by/on behalf of the applicant to notify the gardaí of the offence and to co-operate with them.
Therefore, the applicant has failed to satisfy Article 23 of the Scheme in that the offence was not reported to the gardaí without delay. Accordingly, the applicant's application for compensation is refused.
The Tribunal would like to add however, that in refusing the applicant's claim that it has sympathy for the applicant and the horrific ordeal that she endured, but unfortunately the criteria as set out in the Scheme have not been fulfilled in the particular circumstances of her case.
Given that the applicant's claim has been refused under Article 23 of the scheme, there is no need to consider whether or not circumstances existed to justify extending the time limit for receipt of the application in this case under Article 21.
Dated this 10th day of March 2010
[ ]