Publication
54778 (13 March 2023)
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 of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted - General Scheme
Appeal of [ ]
Application number: 54778
Name of appellant: [ ]
Date of incident: [ ]
Date application received: [ ]
Decision: No award.
The Appellant applied to the Tribunal arising from an incident which occurred on or about the [ ] at [ ] in [ ]. The Appellant stated that he was shot in the back [ ] by [ ].
A single member of the Tribunal made a determination in the Appellant’s case at first instance by decision dated [ ]. The Appellant exercised his right under Paragraph 25 of the Scheme to appeal this decision by way of hearing by three members of the Tribunal.
A division of three members of the Tribunal was appointed to hear the appeal. This division of the Tribunal sat remotely on the [ ] to hear the appeal. The Appellant was in attendance and represented himself. The Tribunal considered the case afresh (or de novo), taking into account the papers submitted by the Applicant, his oral evidence and his submissions in the course of the hearing.
The Appellant was unsure whether the incident had occurred on the [ ] or the [ ], however he was clear that it was a [ ] morning. Following the incident, he left the [ ] and returned home. The Appellant did not report the incident to An Garda Siochana for the reasons extensively outlined by him in the course of the appeal hearing. The Appellant stated that there were a number of independent witnesses, however no person has been prosecuted in respect of the incident at any time. The Appellant has not received any payment of compensation in respect of the matter.
The Scheme provides that the Tribunal may pay compensation for out-of-pocket expenses in respect of personal injury, where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence, subject to the provisions of the Scheme. Amounts claimed must be vouched and/or supported by appropriate documentation. The Tribunal is entirely responsible for deciding, in any particular case, whether compensation is payable under the scheme.
Paragraph 21 of the Scheme (pre-April 2021) states that “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”. In this case, the application was received on the [ ].
Paragraph 23 of the Scheme (pre-April 2021) states 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 without delay to the Gardaí. However, the Tribunal will have discretion to dispense with this requirement 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.” In this case, the incident was not the subject of criminal proceedings and the Appellant confirmed that he did make any report or notification of the incident to An Garda Siochana.
The Appellant confirmed that he was not in employment at the time of the incident and had been in receipt of social welfare benefits before and since that time. The Appellant confirmed that he has had the benefit of a medical card. No out-of-pocket expenses have been vouched by the Appellant, indeed the Appellant was unable to identify any such expense having been incurred.
The application in this case was received by the Tribunal on the [ ]. At that time, more than twelve years had elapsed since the incident the subject of the application occurred. The Tribunal must determine, in considering the period of delay, whether the circumstances arising in this case are such that exceptional treatment is justified under Paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
The evidence of the Appellant was that he became very unwell in [ ] and it was only after this that he became aware of the extent of his various health difficulties. Eventually, he discovered the existence of the Tribunal and he had not been aware of the Scheme previously. The Tribunal has carefully considered the Appellant’s evidence. In this case, the period of delay in excess of twelve years is grossly inordinate. The Appellant was aware in the aftermath of the incident described that he had suffered injury as a result of a criminal act. A lack of awareness of the Scheme on its own has never been accepted as a circumstance justifying exceptional treatment. The Tribunal does not find that circumstances arise in this case which justify exceptional treatment under Paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
In addition, the evidence of the Appellant confirmed that he did not report the incident to An Garda Siochana and no criminal proceedings arose. The Appellant confirmed that he did not communicate with An Garda Siochana regarding the matter and did not attempt to notify them. In those circumstances, the Application does not qualify for compensation pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the Scheme.
Finally, the evidence of the Appellant confirmed that no out-of-pocket expenses arose in this case which the Appellant might conceivably be compensated for had he otherwise met the requirements of the Scheme. No loss of earnings arose and the Appellant had the benefit of a medical card in respect of his hospital and medical treatment. In those circumstances, no financial loss arose for which the Appellant could qualify for an award of compensation had he otherwise met the requirements of the Scheme.
In all the circumstances, the Tribunal must refuse the appeal and make no award.
Dated the 13th day of March 2023.
Cathal Lombard.
Mema Byrne.
Roderick Maguire.