Publication
54892 (15 June 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
Appeal
Applicant/appellant: [ ]
Application number: 54892
[ ]
Present:
For the Tribunal:
For the applicant/appellant:
[ ] (Applicant) and [ ], his wife.
1. [ ] (“the Applicant”) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted in respect of an incident which occurred on [ ] during which [ ] was assaulted while travelling home on a minibus taxi after a night out in [ ] town.
2. A first instance decision, made by a single Member, issued from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on [ ] stating that the case was ineligible for consideration under the Scheme as being out of time, the application not having been made within three months of the assault, and there being no reasons shown as to justify exceptional treatment and admit the case. The Applicant appealed that decision and pursuant to paragraph 25 of the Scheme, a three Member panel of the Tribunal was constituted to consider his application on a de novo (afresh) basis. The Appeal hearing took place on 13 March 2023 and was held remotely by video conferencing platform, with the agreement of the Applicant. The Tribunal had the benefit of the Applicant’s Appeal file consisting of 46 pages including vouching documentation and a Schedule of Losses. The Tribunal also received the direct oral evidence of the Applicant and his wife.
3. The incident was not witnessed by Gardai, but a Garda report confirmed that Garda [ ] attended [ ] home afterwards. It was outlined that an argument started [ ]. The assailant was convicted subsequently and sentenced to [ ] imprisonment and fined €1,000. [ ] attended his GP and was referred to hospital.
4. Receipts were submitted in relation to out-of-pocket expenditure by the Applicant. He submitted that he had spent €560 in the [ ] hospital, €23.98 in prescription medication at one stage and €18.48 at another time. He had also spent €50 attending his doctor. No loss of earnings was claimed.
5. The application form was received on [ ], ie more than 22 months after the incident and 18 months after the time limit for application. It was stated on the application form that the application was late “due to the Covid restrictions. I attended my solicitor on [ ] – one week after the Guilty verdict – to discuss possibility of claiming compensation through Civil Proceedings. She advised me of this Scheme which I was previously unaware of.”
6. In the hearing, the Applicant stated that he thought that criminal proceedings had to be concluded before anything else and that the Gardai did not mention the existence of the Tribunal.
7. In response to questions from the Tribunal, the Applicant’s wife outlined that the assailant had appealed his conviction. A Garda phoned her around this time to say that the assailant wanted to meet her. She met the aasilant in the car park of [ ] where he ave her €1,000. She stated that she took the money and put it away. She subsequently dipped into it, spending it all, but was glad when it was gone.
8. The Applicant stated that he did not feel that justice was done as he had no closure. The offender had previous convictions for assult and he should have served more prison time. He and his wife had a difficult few years.
9. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant was the victim of a crime of violence arising out of the incident which occurred on [ ] and that he suffered personal injuries directly attributable to that crime of violence (satisfying paragraph 1 of the Scheme). The Tribunal also accepts that the assault was reported to the Gardaí without delay (satisfying paragraph 23 of the Scheme).
10. The submission of the application three months after the incident in question is an issue in this case. Paragraph 20 of the Scheme (formerly para 21) states:
“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”. (emphasis added)
11. In this case the incident occurred on the [ ]. In the normal course of events the application should have been made on or before [ ]. It was submitted more than 19 months after that date on [ ].
12. In order to assess whether a late application is admissible, the Tribunal must determine whether there are circumstances which on its consideration, justify exceptional treatment. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the Scheme is remedial in nature and circumstances giving rise to exceptional treatment should be interpreted in a “broad, liberal and generous manner responsive to the circumstances of the victim of crime in each case”: Bowes v CICT [2022] IEHC 703 [70].
13. The Tribunal entirely accepts the applicant's contention that in this case that they did not register that the Scheme was in existence until some time after [ ]. This was either because they were not told about it earlier, or that if they was told about the Scheme it was not sufficiently clear that they could progress their application before the conclusion of the criminal process. As such, the circumstances warrant the exceptional treatment of admitting this application for further consideration under the Scheme.
14. The Applicant states that he was out of pocket in the amount of €652.46. However, it emerged during the hearing in response to questions that the Applicant’s wife had been given €1,000 by the assailant in relation to the assult.
15. In this case, the amount of €1,000 paid is more than the amount of the Applicant’s loss and claimed by the Applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal makes no award.
16. The Tribunal admits the application for consideration and makes no award.
Dated 15 June 2023
Roderick Maguire BL, for and on behalf of the sitting members of the Tribunal.