Publication
51653 (20 March 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: 51653
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The applicant is awarded the sum of €121.31 under the Scheme.
1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In his application for compensation under the Scheme, received by the Tribunal on [ ], the applicant stated that he had suffered injuries in [ ] when he was assaulted during a ‘carjacking’ incident when he was working as a [ ] on [ ]. His application form states that he was assaulted and that he suffered from ‘left shoulder injury, injury to the face and knee, psychological injuries’.
3. A garda report is on file which corroborates the hijacking of the applicant’s vehicle. A doctor’s letter certified him as unable to work for 12 days.
4. From the foregoing, I am satisfied that the applicant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that he was a victim of a crime of violence and sustained personal injury which is directly attributable to that crime of violence.
5. The incident was reported to the Gardaí on the date of the and the application was made within three months of the incident. This meets the procedural requirements of bringing a claim to the Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, I admit the application for consideration under the Scheme.
7. The Tribunal may make awards of compensation for expenses that are incurred as a consequence of injuries sustained by a crime of violence. This might cover the cost of treatment or loss of earnings. On the other hand the Scheme does not allow the Tribunal to make any award for general pain and suffering caused by the injury: Para 6(e) of the Scheme. It also does not provide for damages caused by the loss of personal property. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant was a victim of crime and that he has suffered as a consequence. However it is constrained to apply the Scheme and it has no power to go beyond it.
8. The Garda report dated [ ] states that the applicant was ‘forcibly removed’ from [ ]. A print-out from the PULSE system indicates that the applicant was removed from the car by people to whom he had [ ] with threats to kill.
9. The applicant submitted a letter from his GP dated [ ] stating that he suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the carjacking incident. It certified him as unfit for work from [ ] to [ ], a 12-day period.
10. In a Schedule of special damages, the applicant has claimed for medical expenses (in the sum of €394.31), travel expenses (which includes the costs of an NCT and a new driver licence card, and which totals €1,400.75); loss of earnings in the sum of €2,743 and miscellaneous expenses including the purchase of a [ ] in the sum of €4,550.
11. It is clear that the loss of property cannot be subject of an award of compensation by the Tribunal. The damages which can be assessed are the expenses arising from the injuries sustained, and the loss of earnings that flowed from those injuries. A difficulty in this case is disaggregating the loss occasioned by the theft and destruction of the applicant’s car from any losses occasioned by any injuries sustained on the date of the incident.
12. There is no report from a medic in this case setting out the extent of the injuries suffered by the applicant in this case. Neither the garda report nor any medical evidence attest to the physical injuries the applicant claims that he sustained. Indeed the applicant proffers no detailed description of the physical injuries that he sustained.
13. Albeit there is a letter on file from a GP which states that the applicant was suffering from PTSD, the Tribunal notes that a GP is not in a position to make a psychiatric assessment.
14. PTSD is a psychiatric illness. Where shock causes a recognisable psychiatric illness it may be the basis for a claim of compensation. However, certain elements which must be proven to establish a compensatable injury from nervous shock. These include that a recognised psychiatric injury has resulted and in this regard general upset, stress and anxiety do not suffice. (These guidelines derive from the case of Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3 IR 253).
15. In this case, aside from questions in respect of whether a GP is capable of making a psychiatric diagnosis, there is no detail on how the GP came to their opinion that the applicant suffered from PTSD. The Tribunal notes that the GP was of the opinion that the PTSD would resolve by [ ] (ie less than two weeks after the incident) whereas the applicant states that he was not able to work for a longer period than that.
16. In terms of medical expenses claimed by the applicant, the following table sets out both the sums claimed and the decision in relation to each heading.
| Item | Cost | Evidence and analysis | Amount allowed |
| Prescription expenses | €6.31 | A prescription in this sum for [ ] dated [ ] is on file. This is in close proximity to the event in issue and likely to be healthcare connected with it. | €6.31 |
| GP visits | €170 | The applicant has submitted receipts from his GP dated [ ] in the sum of €60; [ ] in the sum of €55. It is unclear where the remaining receipt is located; while mastercard receipts are included the dates on them, and the invoices to which they tally, are unclear. The Tribunal deems the [ ] receipt close in time to the incident and likely to be related to it; it is probable that the [ ] receipt was a follow-up of the same matter. The Tribunal allows these two expenses. | €115 |
| New glasses | €218 | A receipt for glasses in this sum is on file, dated [ ]. It is unclear how the injury in question can be linked to the purchase of new glasses ten months after the incident. This claim is not allowed. | €0 |
17. For completeness it should be noted that there under the heading of miscellaneous travel expenses, there is nothing to link this with accessing medical care.
18. The applicant claims that he was out of work for 10 weeks, which he says is a net loss of €3,070 (or €307 per week). The applicant received €326 in social welfare payments during this period.
19. As set out above, there is no medical evidence to support the applicant’s account of injuries preventing him from working for more than 12 calendar days. Further, the medical evidence of a psychiatric injury during that period is weak. It does not provide a basis to find, on the balance of probabilities, that a psychiatric condition over and above distress and anxiety was suffered by the applicant. Though the Tribunal is certain that the event itself was distressing, it cannot find an evidential basis upon which to award damages for the consequences of an injury under this heading.
20. Even if a psychiatric injury were established it is difficult to see how the amount claimed for ten weeks’ loss of earnings could be awarded. While there is no evidence of psychiatric or other injury preventing the applicant from working for the latter portion of this period, there is evidence that it took ten weeks or so for the applicant to get a [ ] following the incident. It was on the [ ] for example, that the applicant had an appointment for an NCT for a vehicle being submitted for testing as a public service vehicle.
21. It appears that the primary barrier to the applicant working was the loss of his car rather than his injuries. As set out above, the Tribunal cannot award damages on the basis of the consequences of the loss of property.
22. In the absence of evidence which establishes on the balance of probabilities that the injuries sustained prevented the applicant from working at all, or indeed for the period claimed, the Tribunal must decline to make an award under this heading.
12. The Tribunal awards the sum of €121.31 in compensation for the criminally inflicted injuries sustained by the applicant on [ ].
Tricia Sheehy Skeffington
Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
20 March 2023