Publication
F/54310 (30 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 [ ] in respect of her father [ ]
Application number: F/54310
Name of applicant: [ ] in respect of her father [ ]
Date of incident: [ ]
Date application received: [ ]
Outcome: The Tribunal awards the Applicant the amount of €20,865 each to the Applicant and [ ] in relation to the claim.
The Applicant applied to the Tribunal arising from the death of her father following a gun attack. A Garda Report outlines that on the day of the attack, [ ] and was shot. The report outlines that a murder investigation was ongoing.
A single member of the Tribunal made a determination in the Applicant’s case at first instance by decision dated [ ], refusing the application as being out of time. The Applicant exercised her right under Paragraph 25 of the Scheme to appeal this decision by way of hearing by three members of the Tribunal.
A panel of three members of the Tribunal was appointed to hear the appeal. It met on the [ ] remotely to hear the Applicant’s appeal. The Applicant represented herself. The Tribunal considered the case afresh, taking into account the papers submitted by the Applicant and the written and oral submissions made by his legal team.
A Garda report dated [ ] outlined that the applicant was the victim of a gun attack at approximately [ ] on [ ].
Although it was stated that the deceased had multiple previous convictions up to [ ], this was corrected subsequently. It was clarified that the deceased had a number of convictions from [ ] to [ ] but none after this date. The Applicant stated that her father [ ].
People had been arrested in relation to his death in [ ] but had not been charged.
In relation to the lateness of her application, the Applicant said that she was originally 16 days late for the three-month timeframe. At the time of her father’s killing, she had been extremely traumatised. [ ]. In addition, she stated that she was never informed of the time limit in relation to application. She stated that she has struggled with what happened to her father and has attended psychologists and counsellors since and still struggles with nightmares and night terrors.
The Applicant stated that she had been in employment at the time but had lost her job as a consequence of what happened. She had changed job and had not been able to start in the new job so had lost it.
[ ] BL instructed by [ ] solicitors represented the Applicant. He made written and oral submissions focussing in particular on the exceptional treatment that should be afforded to the Applicant in relation to her application, and submitting that legal costs should also be awarded. In relation to costs, he relied on provisions of the Constitution, being Arts. 40.1 and 40.3, Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 19 TEU, and Arts. 6, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was asserted that the Applicant could not properly pursue her claim without the benefit of legal representation.
The General Scheme provides that the Tribunal may pay compensation, but not general damages, in respect of personal injury, where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence, subject to the provisions of the Scheme. The Tribunal is entirely responsible for deciding in any particular case whether compensation is payable under the scheme.
Article 21 of the General 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 [ ]. The application was received outside the specified period of three months, some 24 days after the time limit.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant suffered a great tragedy in relation to the killing of her father. [ ]. The Tribunal therefore finds that there were circumstances to justify exceptional treatment and admits the application for consideration.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s father was killed without provocation or other responsibility and in a most horrific manner. The Tribunal is further satisfied that under Art. 13, (formerly Art. 14) the deceased’s conduct, character or way of life did not make it inappropriate that an award should be made or that such an award should be reduced.
The Tribunal finds that the Scheme does not provide for the payment of legal costs and refuses the application for legal costs on this basis.
The Tribunal notes the on the basis of the documents submitted, the Applicant was on disability allowance from [ ] and therefore the Tribunal does not find that there was any loss of earnings due to the death of her father.
The Tribunal accepts that she and [ ], shared the expenses of the funeral, in the amount of €7,430. The Tribunal also awards a contribution of €250 towards the unvouched costs of the funeral reception and €1,200 towards a gravestone which the Applicant and [ ] were unable to afford.
The Tribunal was informed of the extended family members of the deceased, being [ ].
In all of the circumstances outlined by the Applicant, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proper award should be for the money being awarded to be divided equally between the Applicant and [ ].
The Tribunal awards the Applicant the amount of €8,880 in relation to the out of pocket expenses suffered by the Applicant and [ ]. From this amount the Tribunal deducts the amount of €2,150 which was paid by way of grants, bringing the amount to €6,730 and awards €3,365 to each. In addition, the Tribunal awards a solatium payment of €17,500 each to the Applicant and [ ], in circumstances where [ ], dealt with the aftermath of his killing and provided for his funeral arrangements.
[ ] €20,865
[ ] €20,865
Dated 30 March 2023.
Roderick Maguire, Nora Pat Stewart, Mema Byrne