Publication
53169 (3 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: 53169
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The applicant is awarded the sum of €2,932.29 under the Scheme, subject to deduction commensurate with any compensation paid to him by his assailant.
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, dated [ ] but apparently sent into the Tribunal in early [ ], the applicant stated that he had suffered severe facial injuries as a result of an assault.
3. Para 21 of the Scheme in place at the time of the assault requires that an application be made within 3 months of the incident giving rise to the claim, though that period may be extended where the Tribunal finds circumstances that warrant exceptional treatment.
4. In this case the incident occurred on the [ ]. in normal circumstances the application should have been submitted to the tribunal secretariat or no before the [ ].
5. However the application was not made until early [ ]. The exact date is not clear. It appears though that the application form was signed by the applicant on the [ ] even if it were not sent on that date.
6. On his application form the applicant stated in response to a question asking for reasons for any late application, that the Tribunal had been notified within the three-month period. An administrative note on the form indicates that the applicant had been in contact with the Tribunal Secretariat on [ ]. A further letter on file from the applicant which is dated the [ ] encloses the application form. This letter states that there was a delay in obtaining documents from the Gardai however that it enclosed such documents now, which document bore the date the [ ]. The letter asserted that now these documents were to hand the applicant was in the position to make his application.
7. The tribunal finds that there are circumstances that warrant the exceptional treatment of allowing further consideration of this application notwithstanding that it was late. This is because the delay was only around one month and also it appears that the delay was largely due to the fact that the applicant was seeking to gather information for the benefit of the tribunal. It does not appear that the applicant was legally represented at the time that he made the application and as such latitude should be afforded to him given the circumstances outlined.
8. The incident was reported to the Gardaí on [ ], being the same day of the incident thereby meeting the requirement of Para 22 of the Scheme (that the matter be reported without delay). The Gardai instituted proceedings against the applicant’s assailants.
9. 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. Accordingly, I admit the application for consideration under the Scheme.
10. The applicant has submitted evidence both from the Gardai and a report compiled for the criminal trial by Prof [ ], attached to the [ ]. That report states that the injuries which the applicant sustained were consistent with his evidence that he had been head-butted. [ ]
11. The report states that the applicant was discharged from hospital on [ ]. The applicant stated on his application form that he remained off work at the date of signing the application form. It appears that he was on sickness benefit until [ ].
12. The Tribunal may make awards of compensation for expenses that are incurred as a consequence of the injury sustained by a crime of violence. This might cover the cost of treatment or loss of earnings. However 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.
13. The applicant has submitted the following invoices for treatment:
| Item | Discussion | Award |
| Public inpatient charge for four days from [ ] from [ ] hospital, €300 | Directly attributable to the crime of violence | €300 |
| accident and emergency charge from [ ] for €100 | Directly attributable to the crime of violence | €100 |
| Prescriptions: (1) €13.83 (unclear date and treatment), (2) Entirely unclear | These expenses cannot be assessed as their detail has been effaced. | €0 |
14. The applicant also stated that he had made three round trips of 240km to [ ] for treatment. Using the applicable civil service rate at the time (37.95c per km) the Tribunal makes an award of €273.24 for this expenditure.
15. The total awarded for out-of-pocket expenses is therefore €673.24.
16. The applicant claimed for loss of earnings arising out of the incident.
17. A letter from the Department of Social Welfare dated [ ] stated that between [ ] and [ ] the applicant received €2,675.95 in illness benefit. The personal weekly rate applied was €147.30.
18. The Department of Social Welfare also sent a letter on [ ] setting out the applicant’s employment contributions and gross earnings between [ ] and [ ]. This showed that:
In [ ], the applicant worked for 44 weeks and earned €13,327 gross.
In [ ], the applicant worked for 52 weeks and earned €15,366 gross.
In [ ], the applicant worked for 31 weeks and earned €8,988 gross
In [ ], the applicant worked for 17 weeks for one employer earning €5,605, and a further 13 weeks for another employer, earning €5,218.
All but the latter employments listed above were with [ ].
19. The applicant submitted a letter from an employer, [ ] indicating that he was due to take up employment on [ ] but was prevented from so doing as a consequence of the injuries he sustained. It states that his pay would have been stg£13 per hour for 11 hours per day Mon- Friday, and 7 hours on a Saturday. It states that this was a building project in [ ], but it does not state the duration of the project. 20. The Tribunal notes that this letter envisages a 62-hour working week equating to stg£806 per week. The Tribunal further notes that in his most recent employment with this employer the applicant earned approximately €329 gross per week, whereas in [ ] he earned €289.93 per week from the same employer. This, along with the fact that the proposed employment envisages work hours far outside legal norms, raises questions over whether the proposed employment is somewhat exaggerated. The Tribunal notes that no contract of employment was supplied. Further no wasted travel or accommodation costs which would have been expected had the applicant been on the cusp of moving country for work has been supplied. The Tribunal therefore does not put any weight on this letter from [ ].
21. The Tribunal notes that a number of payslips were also supplied from an employer named [ ]. These demonstrate a weekly gross wage of €431.61 per week. A P45 states that that employment ceased on [ ].
22. On [ ] the Tribunal Secretariat wrote to the applicant’s solicitor enquiring when he returned to work and what the outcome of the proceedings were. No reply was received.
23. On the evidence given it appears that the applicant had been employed for 30 weeks in [ ] before the incident of [ ], which is in the week 36 of the year. He had worked for 31 out of the 52 weeks the preceding year, but the full year in [ ]. The Tribunal therefore deems it probable that during the period in question the applicant worked approximately 80% of the available time.
24. The Tribunal also finds that the average weekly wage commanded by the applicant in [ ] was €329, being the last gross weekly wage of the employer who indicated that there was more work available for him. It deems that the period that the applicant was not available for work as a consequence of his injuries was between [ ] and [ ]. This, the period during which the applicant was entitled to illness benefit, was close to 19 weeks. Going on his previous employment pattern, the Tribunal will allow 80% of this time, being approximately 15 weeks.
25. 15 weeks’ pay at €329 is €4,935. However the €2,675.95 already paid to the applicant in illness benefit must be deducted from this, leaving €2,259.05 by way of an award for loss of earnings.
26. The total losses attributable to this claim is therefore €2,932.29.
27. However, the Tribunal notes that on the application form the applicant states that he contemplated civil proceedings against his assailant. The garda report issues at a time prior to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Therefore the Gardai were not in a position to say whether compensation had been paid in the context of criminal proceedings at that time.
28. The position is that under paragraph 5 of the Scheme that if compensation is paid from another source it must be deducted from the award made by the Tribunal. In this case it is not known whether any compensation was made to the applicant by his assailant. Paragraph 5 of the Scheme permits a payment to be made “subject to conditions as to its repayment in whole or in part in the event of compensation being subsequently received from another source.”
29. In this case any such payment is likely to already have been made. In the circumstances this award is made subject to the applicant confirming that he has not received any compensation from his assailant, and on the basis that any such compensation may be deducted from the award as outlined below.
12. The Tribunal awards the sum of €2,932.29 in compensation for the criminally inflicted injuries sustained by the applicant on [ ]. This award is subject to deduction of any compensation paid by the applicant’s assailant to the applicant in respect of the incident of [ ].
Tricia Sheehy Skeffington
Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
3 March 2023