Publication
54443 (20 July 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: 54443
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision/outcome: No compensation awarded by operation of paragraph 15 of the Scheme: vouched expenses are in a sum less than compensation already received by the applicant in respect of this incident.
1. Mr [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In his application for compensation under the Scheme, received on [ ], the applicant stated that on [ ] he had suffered injuries at the [ ] in [ ]. He had been head-butted.
3. The applicant’s assailant was charged with assault in the District Court, whereupon the matter was dismissed by the Court, the defendant having paid the sum of €1,000 to the applicant.
4. I am satisfied that the applicant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that he was a victim of a crime of violence and sustained personal injury which is directly attributable to that crime of violence. Accordingly, I admit the application for consideration under the Scheme. In particular it appears that while a prosecution did not go the full route in this case, the assailant accepted culpability for an assault.
5. The application form is somewhat sparse in respect of both the incident and the primary injuries sustained. However the trauma and consequent dizziness, plus a claim of whiplash to the shoulder are asserted. The main symptomology set out on the form comprise concussion, whiplash, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and tinnitus. There is no medical report or narrative treatment record confirming the nature of the injury.
6. The Garda report gives further detail on the incident and injury sustained. It states that after a verbal altercation the applicant was headbutted, that he was treated by a first-aider at the scene and then transferred to hospital by ambulance where he was treated for concussion and whiplash and discharged on strong pain killers.
7. While the applicant states that he missed work between [ ] and [ ], he makes no claim for loss of earnings.
8. Two trips of between 60 and 160km are claimed to attendance at an ENT specialist and for an MRI. However the lack of medical reports or letters from any medical professional renders it impossible to assess the link between the injuries sustained on [ ] and the treatment obtained from these professionals. As such these specific expenses cannot be awarded.
9. The applicant states on his application form that his expenditure was €355 on doctors/hospital, €63.86 on medicine and €150 on physiotherapy. The applicant submitted receipts and invoices for the following items, which are analysed as follows:
| Item | Detail | Discussion | Amount allowed |
| Invoice for A&E treatment on [ ] | In the sum of €100, marked as paid | This accords with date of incident | €100 |
| [ ] Prescription claims form | From hospital pharmacy in sum of €20.19 | This accords with date of incident | €20.19 |
| [ ] pharmacy receipt | For prescriptions and Panadol in sum of €28.87 | Prescriptions appear to accord with a prescription claims form emanating from [ ] Clinic of the same date. While the medical nature of the treatment and why it was required is difficult to ascertain from the papers, the date is extremely close to the incident and likely bound up with the resultant required treatment | €28.87 |
| [ ] pharmacy receipt | Receipt for Panadol in the sum of €14.80 | Without medical reports it is difficult to conclude that Panadol was required two-weeks post discharge from hospital for concussion. | €0 |
| GP invoices [ ] | €40 and €20 and €15 paid. | These invoices do not indicate their purpose other than that of the [ ] which is for ‘blood pressure’. It is unclear how that latter matter is connected with the incident, as indeed the lack of detail for the reason for the first two appointments is unclear. However that of [ ] is temporally proximate and likely bound up with the treatment for the injuries arising from the incident. | €40 |
| Invoices [ ] Hospital and [ ] | First in the sum of €180, for ‘adult new consultation’. Marked ‘paid’. |
Second for €100, also paid.|It is unclear what this treatment involved and how it is connected with the injuries sustained in the incident|€0|
| Invoices from [ ] Physiotherapy for sessions on [ ] | €50 per consultation, paid. | While there is no medical report it appears from the Garda report that the applicant’s account of suffering whiplash is corroborated. It appears probable to the Tribunal that physiotherapy would have been a necessary treatment. | €150 |
| Total provisionally allowed: | €339.06 |
10. In his application form the applicant sets out the traumatic impact that the incident had on him, and his young family, in the weeks following the incident. The Tribunal does not doubt that trauma, upset and anxiety was caused to the applicant and it sympathises with him for this. However sympathy cannot alter the terms of the Scheme under which the Tribunal is appointed, and this (under paragraph 6(e)) expressly prevents awards of compensation for ‘pain and suffering’. This limits the Tribunal to solely awarding compensation for direct costs and expenses arising from the injury sustained by the crime of violence, and indeed which expenses have been proved to be linked to either a loss of earnings or a medical treatment required from that injury.
11. A further limitation of the Scheme is paragraph 15. This reads:
“The Tribunal will deduct from the amount of an award under this Scheme any sums paid to or for the benefit of the victim or his dependants by way of compensation or damages from the offender or any person on the offender’s behalf following the injury.”
12. As such where compensation has been paid by an assailant, this sum must be subtracted from any award of compensation made by the Tribunal.
13. In this case the Garda report indicates that the assailant escaped conviction, but that this to some degree may have been bound up with him paying the applicant €1,000. This is in excess of the vouched expenses found above to be attributable to the injuries sustained in the incident. In the circumstances no award of compensation can be made in this case.
Tricia Sheehy Skeffington
Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
20 July 2022