Publication
54044 (22 December 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 appeal under paragraph 25 of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of an Appeal Panel
In Private
Name of appellant: [ ]
Application number: 54044
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: Received by the Tribunal on [ ]
Heard on: [ ]
Location: The appeal was conducted remotely in accordance with Instruction Number 2 issued by the Tribunal under paragraph 19 of the Scheme.
Appeal panel: Mr Conor Heaney (Chair); Mr Cathal Lombard and Mr Damian Sheridan BL.
Persons present and capacity: [ ] (Appellant); Ms Anne Marie Treacy (Secretary to the Tribunal)
Summary: Award in the sum of €5,586.55.
1. The Tribunal convened, in private, to consider an appeal brought by Mr [ ] (‘the applicant’) under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. At the appeal hearing, the Tribunal had before it an appeal hearing bundle numbering pages, 1-42.
3. By way of a notice of appeal, dated [ ], the applicant appealed against the decision of a Single Member who, by a written decision on [ ], refused his application for compensation. By that decision, the Single Member, refused to admit the applicant’s application for compensation, no circumstances having been identified by the Tribunal such as to justify exceptional treatment of the application.
4. In his application form, the applicant stated that he had been walking home with friends in [ ], having been socialising with them earlier that evening. As he was doing so, the applicant was accosted by a number of youths who were unknown to him. The applicant tried to ignore the youths but he and his group were followed. One of the youths threatened the applicant that he would have his teeth kicked in. The applicant stated that he had fallen behind his friends and tried to catch up with them. Before he had time to do so, the applicant was punched twice in the face by the same youth who had threatened him a short while beforehand. The applicant fell to the ground. He was kicked to the head and face by two youths before they ran away.
5. The applicant stated that An Garda Síochána were called and the youths were detained convenient to the location where the applicant had been assaulted.
6. The applicant stated that, as a result of the assault, he lost his upper front tooth. In addition, the applicant sustained damage to an adjacent tooth. The applicant was medically treated for his injuries. He stated that the incident had left a permanent impact on his life and that he had been left to deal with the lifelong financial cost of the injuries which he suffered.
7. It was confirmed by the applicant that there was no loss of earnings. There were vouched out of pocket expenses in the appeal hearing bundle in the sum of €5,586.55.
8. A report from An Garda Síochána, dated [ ], was contained in the appeal hearing bundle. The report confirmed the applicant’s version of events. The report further confirmed that the offenders in question received a probation order for [ ] in respect of a section 3 assault upon the applicant.
9. At the appeal, the Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant.
10. The applicant confirmed the factual backdrop to the assault which had resulted in his application for compensation. The applicant also told the Tribunal about the dental treatment which he received which included having a new crown fitted and having remedial treatment in respect of the adjacent tooth which had been damaged in the assault. The final dental treatment was completed in [ ], some 14 months after the incident. The applicant stated that he had been advised that no further remedial dental treatment was required.
11. The applicant learned about the existence of the Scheme in [ ] when he was told about it by his wife’s friend. The applicant accepted that he had not an application to the Tribunal until after the expiry of the requisite period as set out by the Scheme. The applicant stated that he had been traumatised by the assault upon him. His trauma had directly and negatively affected his ability to lodge his claim timeously. Upon being questioned by the Tribunal, the applicant agreed that he had ‘compartmentalised’ his trauma and found it difficult to deal with matters in the immediate aftermath of the assault. He had a tendency to deal ‘in chunks’ and considered that he needed to prioritise his treatment and recovery. He made an application for compensation as soon as he felt able to do so.
12. The applicant confirmed that he had incurred vouched out of pocket expenses in the sum of €5,586.55.
13. The powers of the Tribunal, on an appeal, are set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Scheme. The appeal hearing proceeded on a de novo basis. This meant that, at the appeal, the application was considered afresh by this Appeal Panel of the Tribunal. While the decision of the Single Member was contained in the appeal hearing bundle, the Tribunal was not bound by it. All of the powers available under the Scheme to the Single Member were also available to the Tribunal on appeal. The Tribunal could uphold the decision under appeal and make no award or it could make an award.
14. In its deliberations, the Tribunal carefully considered all the documentary and the applicant’s oral evidence.
15. The applicant, in the Tribunal’s view, was a reliable and honest witness. He did not embellish his account, nor did he overstate the nature and extent of the injuries which he suffered.
16. The Tribunal was satisfied, on the evidence, that the applicant had sustained personal injuries which were directly attributable to a crime of violence.
17. Paragraph 21 of the Scheme 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.’
18. As can be seen, the application was required to have been made to the Tribunal by the applicant promptly and not less than three months from the date of the incident. A claim that is submitted outside the three-month time limit can only be admitted to the Scheme if the Tribunal considers that the circumstances which resulted in the late submission of the application justify exceptional treatment.
19. In this instance, the application form ought to have been submitted by the applicant on or before [ ]. In the event, the application for compensation was not received by the Tribunal until the end of [ ]. As such, the application was received just short of two months after the three-month time limit had expired.
20. The Tribunal, having taken careful account of the applicant’s evidence given at the appeal hearing, was persuaded that the circumstances as set out were such as to justify exceptional treatment. As a result, the Tribunal decided to admit the application for consideration under the Scheme.
21. Not applicable.
22. The Tribunal makes the following award:
Vouched OOP Expenses: €5,586.55
Total: €5,586.55
Conor Heaney
Chairperson, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
For and on behalf of the Appeal Panel of the Tribunal
22 December 2023