Publication
54175 (6 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: 54175
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: Application refused under Paragraph 13 of the Scheme.
1. [ ] (‘the Applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’). The Applicant submitted a completed application form in respect of his claim which was received by the Tribunal on [ ].
2. The details of the incident giving rise to this application are somewhat unusual. The Applicant states that he was driving his car along [ ] in [ ] on the morning of [ ]. The Applicant states that he checked his car mirror and proceeded to change lanes from the outside lane to the middle lane but as he did so a following vehicle sped up, undertook the Applicant’s vehicle and then pulled back into the Applicant’s (middle) lane. The cars collided causing minor damage to the Applicant’s vehicle.
3. The Applicant states that he and the other driver exited their vehicles at traffic lights and it seems that an argument as to who was at fault ensued. The Applicant states that the argument became ‘aggressive’ and ‘abusive’ on both sides and the Applicant accepts that he called the other driver [ ] and spat on the ground.
4. The Applicant states that upon doing so, the other driver attacked the Applicant and attempted to punch him, although the Applicant concedes that the other driver did not manage to land any punches. The Applicant states that he was walking away and managed to avoid a lunge by the other driver who attempted to grab the Applicant’s legs and pull him to the ground. The Applicant states that he continued to retreat until the other driver pushed the Applicant who fell backwards into [ ]. The Applicant states that the other driver motioned as if to punch the Applicant but walked back to the Applicant’s car to take a photograph of it. The other driver then returned to his car and left the scene.
5. The Applicant states that he decided to return to his own car and follow the other driver to photograph his car. The Applicant followed the other driver to a residential area in [ ] whereupon the other driver [ ] and walked towards the Applicant who took flight and left the scene.
6. The Applicant states that he was diagnosed with an ‘impacted intra-articular fracture of the middle phalanx of the left little finger’ for which the Applicant underwent corrective surgery on [ ].
7. The incident was reported by the Applicant to Gardaí at the [ ] Garda Station. Upon reviewing the investigation file the District Officer decided that no prosecution will ensue. The Gardaí have notified the Tribunal that the Applicant has two previous convictions, although neither appear particularly relevant to the application.
8. The Applicant has confirmed to the Tribunal that he has not instigated civil proceedings against the other driver. Further the Applicant has confirmed that the other driver’s insurance will not cover any claim in respect of the alleged assault on the Applicant as it took place outside of his vehicle.
9. The Applicant has provided some documentation to the Tribunal in respect of his out of pocket expenses.
10. Paragraph 13 of the Scheme provides:
‘No compensation will be payable where the Tribunal is satisfied that the victim was responsible, either because of provocation or otherwise, for the offence giving rise to his injuries and the tribunal may reduce the amount of an award where, in its opinion, the victim shas been partially responsible for the offence.’
11. The Applicant has provided a full account of what he says occurred immediately prior to and during the incident. Taking the Applicant’s case at its height, the Applicant states that following a relatively minor road traffic accident he existed his vehicle and confronted the other driver. An argument took place during which the Applicant concedes that he was both ‘aggressive’ and ‘abusive’ (albeit in the context of the other driver behaving similarly). The Applicant states that after calling the other driver [ ] he then spat on the ground. On the Applicant’s own case it was following these actions that the other driver then became physically involved with the Applicant. The Applicant states that following the alleged physical altercation he proceeded to follow the other driver from [ ] to [ ], a distance of approximately [ ], ostensibly to photograph the other driver’s car.
12. It is quite clear to the Tribunal that, taking the Applicant’s application at its height, both individuals involved in this incident behaved in an unnecessarily aggressive fashion toward each other. Whilst the Applicant may have been the victim of an assault it is by no means clear from the papers provided what precisely occurred. However, the Applicant’s narrative of events discloses the fact that the alleged assault did not occur until after the Applicant had [ ] and spat on the ground. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant was responsible for what occurred and, had he behaved in a more cool-headed manner, may well have avoided the injuries of which he now complains.
13. Furthermore, whilst the Tribunal is not bound by any decision made by An Garda Síochána, in the instant case the Tribunal finds it instructive that no prosecution of either party took place.
14. For the reasons set out above the Tribunal refuses the application.
15. N/A.
16. N/A.
17. N/A.
18. Nil.
Marc Murphy
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
6 March 2023