Publication
53486 (3 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
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: 53486
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: Application refused under Paragraphs 1 and 11 of the scheme.
1. Mr. [ ] (‘the Applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’). The Applicant, through his solicitor, has provided somewhat piecemeal information to the Tribunal during the period from [ ] to [ ] in respect of his claim for compensation.
2. In his application the Applicant states that he suffered injuries caused by an identified individual at [ ] Road, [ ], [ ] on [ ]. The said individual threw [ ] which landed at the feet of the Applicant as he was returning home. The Applicant alleges that he tripped over [ ] and suffered injuries to his teeth and mouth area.
3. The Tribunal has been furnished with a Garda report in respect of the incident, dated [ ], which confirms that the identified individual was prosecuted and convicted of criminal damage.
4. The Applicant has submitted a report from Dr. [ ], Dental Surgeon, dated [ ], detailing the Applicant’s dental injuries, his treatment to date (including the cost thereof) and potential treatment into the future (and the proposed cost thereof).
5. Paragraph 1 of the Scheme states:
‘The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal…may pay ex gratia compensation in accordance with this Scheme in respect of personal injury where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence…’
6. The Applicant alleges that as he was walking home he tripped over [ ] that had been thrown [ ] which fell at his feet and consequently suffered personal injuries. The burden of proof lies with the Applicant and the Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant was subject to a crime of violence which caused the Applicant’s alleged injuries.
7. The Tribunal notes the report of Superintendent [ ], dated [ ] which states at Paragraph 2:
‘This Incident was not reported to Gardai until [ ].’
The report further states at Paragraph 5:
“Garda [ ] entered [ ] and spoke with [ ] …who witnessed the Criminal Damage but at no time did he make any allegation of receiving any injuries.
‘[ ] did not allege any injuries nor make any contact with Gardai to pursue any complaint regarding this incident until [ ] he contacted Garda [ ] in relation to this incident.’
8. The Applicant has provided a typed letter dated [ ], addressed to [ ] (an official concerned with [ ]. The Applicant’s letter makes reference to his accident and further states:
‘I tripped on [ ] falling to the ground hitting my mouth with [ ] was carrying injurying my mouth.’
The Applicant has further provided a document entitled ‘My comments on Superintendent’s Report’ which states at Paragraph B:
‘While Garda [ ] was interviewing me it would have been very obvious that I was injured as I had a tissue to my bleeding mouth and I was in extreme shock and very upset….’
The Applicant further states at Paragraph D:
‘…Why would I report my injuries to [ ] and not to Garda [ ] ??’
9. The Tribunal is now presented with two diametrically opposed versions of events and must decide which version to prefer on the balance of probabilities. Having reviewed all the documentation presented by the Applicant and the file in general the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not discharged the burden of proof in respect of his alleged injuries being ‘directly attributable to a crime of violence’. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant reported his alleged injuries to the Gardaí at the time of the incident and therefore cannot be satisfied that he suffered the alleged injuries as a result of the incident on [ ].
10. For the avoidance of doubt, had the Applicant satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 1 of the Scheme the application would have been refused under Paragraph 11 of the Scheme (the obligation to provide all reasonable assistance):
‘No compensation will be payable to an applicant who has not, in the opinion of the Tribunal, given the Tribunal all reasonable assistance, in relation to any medical report, and otherwise.’ (emphasis added)
11. Leaving aside the issue as to whether the Applicant informed Gardaí of his alleged injuries at the time of the accident, the Tribunal received the Applicant’s Application on [ ]. The usual correspondence followed between the Secretariat and the Applicant’s solicitors, resting with correspondence dated [ ] enclosing the Garda report and requesting further information from the Applicant. The Applicant did not respond until [ ], a period of three and a half years. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not given all reasonable assistance as per the requirements of the Scheme.
12. N/A
13. N/A
14. NA
15. Nil.
Marc Murphy, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
3 May 2022