Publication
50592 (27 January 2023)
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: 50592
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The application is dismissed under Article 1 of the Scheme.
1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’) on the [ ] in respect of an incident which occurred on the [ ].
2. The application form was lodged within time and no issues arises in respect of that.
3. The Applicant states that the incident commenced at [ ] at approximately [ ]. The Applicant had gone to the door to answer a call and [ ] ran in attacking her and also attacking her partner [ ].
4. She says in her application form that her injuries included head injuries, a broken tooth and bruising to her face and jaw as well as psychological trauma. She attended hospital in [ ] in the Accident & Emergency Department and subsequently attended her own GP Dr [ ]. She also had to attend Dr [ ] Dental Surgeon.
5. She said that she had to undergo treatment for depression and a special feature was the fact that she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
6. Her Solicitors [ ] of [ ] submitted details of special damages in the sum of €406.61. These principally concerned Doctor’s bills from [ ] Centre in [ ].
7. On the [ ] [ ] submitted a certificate certifying that her annual salary for the years prior to the incident was €26,152 and that she has earned nothing since the attack.
8. The Applicant subsequently wrote to the Tribunal on the [ ] notifying of a new address. She telephoned the Tribunal on the [ ] and stated that proceedings are commencing on the [ ] in [ ] and that her application to the [ ] Compensation Tribunal is still active. It was obvious at that stage that she had submitted applications in both jurisdictions in tandem. The application in [ ] according to her phone conversations was for injuries and damages to herself and her partner. The application in [ ] is for loss of earnings into the future because the [ ] scheme does not cover loss of earnings into the future. From the application form it is obvious that both [ ] but according to her phone call there was no assault at that time. The assault took place in the [ ].
9. Nothing further was heard from her after that call.
10. On the [ ] the Tribunal wrote to [ ] in the following terms: “Please advise if your client intends pursing her application with the Tribunal. If no reply is received by the [ ] the application will be forwarded to a member for decision.” No response has been received to that letter.
11. It is clear and obvious that the Applicant was and is entitled to make an application for compensation to the equivalent body of the Irish Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal in [ ]. It is also obvious that this has been done. The conversation between the Secretariat and the Applicant clearly confirms this. It is also obvious from that conversation that all the injuries suffered by Applicant as stated on the application form (but which are not supported by any medical evidence) were sustained in the [ ]. There is a cross jurisdictional element to this matter. In addition the Applicant and her partner have not had any contact with the Tribunal since [ ].
12. Article 1 of the scheme provides “The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal established under paragraph 16 of the scheme may pay compensation in accordance with the scheme in respect of personal injury where the injury is directly attributable by a crime of violence or as provided for in paragraph 4 to circumstances arising from the action of the victim in assisting or attempting to assist the prevention of crime or the saving of human life. The Injury must have been sustained within the State or aboard an Irish ship or aircraft.”
13. It is impossible as a matter of probability for the Tribunal to determine that the injuries claimed (which have not been medically established) occurred within the State. The conversation between the Applicant and the Secretariat is accepted by the Tribunal as indicating that the injuries actually occurred outside of the jurisdiction.
14. Accordingly the application is dismissed on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements of Article 1 of the Scheme for compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted.
Martin G Lawlor
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
Date: 27 January 2023