Publication
F/53965 (19 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
Decision of a single member
Name of applicant: [ ]
Application number: F/53965
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: €37,022.70
1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In her application for compensation under the Scheme, dated the [ ] of [ ] the applicant stated that she is the mother of the late [ ] deceased (“the deceased”) who died by way of a violent incident which occurred on the [ ] of [ ].
3. The circumstances of the killing of [ ] are outlined in the Garda report submitted to the Tribunal and do not require to be repeated in this decision save as to note that the deceased was [ ] having exited [ ] on the [ ] of [ ] and was declared dead at the scene of the incident.
4. The Applicant sets out the distress that she and her family suffered following their son’s untimely death.
5. No compensation was paid to the family of the deceased.
6. Article 20 of the Scheme provides as follows:-
"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."
7. The death of [ ] occurred on [ ] of [ ], however the application under the Scheme was not received until the [ ].
8. The Tribunal refers to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in J. McE. v. The Residential Institutions Redress Board (3 February 2016) wherein the Court of Appeal held that the power to extend time in that case should be given a “wide and liberal interpretation”. This Tribunal considers that the provisions of Article 20 of this Scheme should also be given a “wide and liberal interpretation”.
9. The Court held in that case that “an applicant seeking an extension of time need only demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances simpliciter, with the standard of exceptionality measured by reference to contemporary standards prevailing within the general public…” (paragraph 38).
10. I have taken into account the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son, and the distress described by her in her application. The Tribunal considers that these circumstances are such as to justify an extension of time and measures exceptionality by reference to contemporary standards prevailing in the general public.
11. As noted, a report of An Garda Síochána concerning the incident giving rise to the death of the Applicant’s son was supplied to the Tribunal. It is clear from the said report that the Applicant had at the date of his death a substantial criminal record noted to be [ ] previous convictions to include seven unauthorised taking charge, a section 4 assault, several charges relating to drink driving and dangerous driving and a number of simple assault charges.
12. Paragraph 14 of the Scheme permits a withholding or refusal of compensation having regard to an applicant’s criminal record, character or way of life. In considering the application of Paragraph 14 this Tribunal notes the deceased had [ ] previous convictions at the date of his death. Based upon this number of previous convictions, this Tribunal is satisfied that Paragraph 14 is of relevance to this case.
13. It is also clear however from the Application before this Tribunal that [ ] in particular has suffered significantly as a result of the loss of her son. This Tribunal has paid particular regard in this case to the ‘Victims Charter’ which provides a definition of a ‘Victim’ to include “a family member” of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who has suffered harm as a result of that person’s death. This definition is taken from the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017.
14. The Applicant has provided receipts for the following sums in respect of funeral and memorial expenses:
(a) €4,728.34 costs of the funeral
(b) €1,900.00 costs purchase of a graveyard plot
(c) €10,000.00 in respect of the costs of the headstone
(d) €1,000 costs of post funeral reception venue
These sums amount to €17,628.34. A funeral grant was received in the sum of €1,000 and therefore the total expenditure claimed amounts to €16,628.34.
15. No further vouched expenditure has been submitted.
16. As noted paragraph 14 is of relevance to this case and therefore this Tribunal reduced the award payable under this heading to therefore award the sum of €11,628.34 in respect of vouched funeral and out of pocket expenses. This applies a net reduction in the sum payable in respect of the deceased of €5,000.
17. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant and her family are entitled to the appropriate sum for solatium, amounting to the sum of €25,394.36. This sum is to compensate the Applicant, her husband and the family members noted upon the application form submitted, for the mental distress and anguish caused to them by the circumstances of the death of deceased.
18. The Tribunal awards the sum of €37,022.70 (€11,628.34 + €25,394.36).
Georgina Robinson, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
19 April 2022