Publication
F/54465 (15 April 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
APPEAL HEARING
APPLICANT: [ ] [F54465] Appeal single member decision of [ ]
Present:
Tribunal Members:
Also present:
This matter came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal of the single members decision dated [ ].
The application was progressed by [ ] who is a sister of [ ], the actual Applicant. [ ] is the mother of [ ] who was brutally murdered by [ ] on the [ ] of [ ]. Her murderer was also [ ]. The application was brought on behalf of the statutory dependents [ ], [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ].
At the outset the Chairman outlined that this was a new hearing and all matters were at issue. He explained that as far as the Tribunal were concerned, they accepted that [ ] was a victim of a crime of violence unlawfully inflicted.
There were only two issues which were Article 10 and Article 21.
[ ] explained that she was familiar with both Articles.
In connection with Article 21 the Chair outlined that this provides as follows: “Application should be made as soon as possible but except in circumstances determined by the Tribunal to justify exceptional treatment, not later than three months from the date of the incident given rise to the injury”.
The application was made on the [ ] of [ ] well outside the time provided for under the scheme.
[ ] explained that her sister [ ] had indicated that she was going to deal with this application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. However, it became obvious over a period that she was not capable of doing it. Evidence was heard that [ ] was for example unable to attend at the hearing due to ongoing upset and distress. She was very distressed at the loss of her daughter [ ]. In addition she had been in receipt of medication for depression and anxiety and is also on sleeping tablets. The evidence before the Tribunal was that [ ] ([ ] sister) had to subsequently take up the matter. The view of the Tribunal was that the application is extremely late and outside the three months but the circumstances required close examination.
However, the Tribunal was impressed with the evidence given by [ ], [ ] and indeed [ ] as to the level of psychological trauma caused to [ ] as a result of this murder.
The Tribunal takes the view that in this case there are particular circumstances which justify exceptional treatment on the grounds that:
In light of this, the Tribunal extends the time for the admission of the application.
In connection with Article 10 of the scheme the Tribunal had the benefit of an email dated [ ] from [ ] in which he stated “I confirm that [ ] and [ ] were not in fact living together at the time of her murder”.
Evidence was given by [ ] and [ ] that she was not living with her killer at the time of her murder.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence from her Aunts and from An Garda Siochana that Article 10 does not apply.
The statutory dependents in this case are as follows:
1. [ ]
2. [ ]
3. [ ]
4. [ ]
5. [ ]
6. [ ]
7. [ ]
The Tribunal proposes to award the maximum solatium of €35,000.00. This is to be apportioned as follows:
[ ]: €2,500.00
[ ]: €2,500.00
[ ]: €1,000.00
[ ]: €1,000.00
[ ]: €1,000.00
[ ]: €1,000.00
This can be paid to each of the above named statutory dependents.
In addition, the Tribunal awards the balance of the solatium in the sum of €26,000.00 to [ ] [ ] who is [ ]. The Tribunal specifically directs that this sum is to be lodged into a Post Office savings account in the joint names of [ ] guardian(s) [ ] and the Tribunal and to be retained there until [ ] attains the age of eighteen years of age.
The Tribunal finally awards the sum of €4,936.00 in respect of the funeral expenses, which said sum is to be paid to [ ] in trust to be applied by her in the discharge of the funeral expenses or to refund the party who has paid the funeral expenses.
Martin Lawlor, Chairman
15 April 2022