Publication
53975 (4 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 Appeal Tribunal
Name of applicant: [ ]
Application number: 53975
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of receipt of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: Award of €2,673.33
1. Mr. [ ], (‘the appellant’) 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 [ ], the appellant states that he was the victim of a crime of violence which occurred on [ ] causing him to sustain personal injury.
3. The appellant states that he intervened in an altercation on a dancefloor. He states that he received a blow to the face, causing him personal injury.
4. A single member of the Tribunal made a determination in the applicant’s case at first instance by decision dated [ ]. The applicant exercised his right under Paragraph 24 (formerly Paragraph 25) of the Scheme to appeal this decision by way of hearing by three members of the Tribunal.
5. A panel of three members of the Tribunal was appointed to hear the appeal. It met on [ ] remotely to hear the applicant’s appeal. The appellant was in attendance. The Tribunal considered the case afresh (or de novo), taking into account the papers submitted by the appellant, his oral evidence and the submissions made by him.
6. The appellant gave evidence to the appeal panel in the course of the hearing. He described how he and his friends were socialising in a nightclub in [ ]. He observed one of his friends being hit by another man, and he went to stand in between them. He described how he was struck in the face unexpectedly by a third party. He broke his tooth. Other friends of his intervened, as did the security in the venue. He said he felt dazed and dizzy, and went outside. He reported the incident to the Gardaí who were outside at the time. He was brought by ambulance to [ ] Hospital, who were unable to treat him. He was brought the following morning to an emergency on-call dentist, who stabilised his tooth and prescribed antibiotics. He said that he then returned to [ ], and made a formal statement to An Garda Síochána.
7. He described the regime of treatment he had for his tooth, which involved several specialist dentists. He said that on [ ], he had an initial assessment in [ ], and a moulding was taken for a denture. Then on [ ], the tooth was extracted. He informed the appeal panel that his maxilla was damaged in the assault. He said that on [ ] the denture was supplied and fitted. He said that he had to wait for the maxilla to heal. He said that his implant treatment began on [ ] in [ ], and included bone graft surgery. He had appointments on [ ], [ ], surgery on [ ], and further appointments on [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ] and [ ] when he had a crown fitted to the tooth. He informed the appeal panel that the tooth in question was one of his front teeth, and that he had never had any dental problems or issues with any teeth prior to this incident.
8. Regarding the delay in applying to the Tribunal for compensation, he said that at the time of the incident, he was finalising his PhD studies at the University of [ ]. His studies had been funded by [ ], and he had been chosen to attend an international conference in [ ], from [ ] to [ ], and had been scheduled to present a paper there. He gave evidence about the responsibility to his funders and his colleagues at the college in relation to preparation for this conference, and how he had to take time from his preparation to attend dental appointments. He also gave evidence of the difficulties he had with his speech, and in dealing with the denture which had been fitted. He said that he had to take time to practice speaking with this denture. He said that he was working evenings and every weekend preparing for the conference, and he had laboratory time booked which had to be rescheduled due to his dental appointments.
9. The application was made using the Tribunal’s application form (satisfying paragraph 21, formerly paragraph 22, of the Scheme); and the incident was reported to the gardai on the same night as the incident (satisfying paragraph 22, formerly paragraph 23 of the Scheme). It is also clear from the garda report of [ ] and the appellant’s direct oral evidence that the appellant was seriously assaulted, and the matter was investigated by the gardai, albeit nobody was charged with the offences the subject of the application. He therefore suffered injuries as a consequence of a crime of violence which brings the claim into the ambit of the Scheme.
10. An issue arises however with the date upon which the application was received by the Tribunal’s Secretariat, being [ ]. The incident causing the injury occurred on [ ]. At paragraph 20 of the Scheme (formerly paragraph 21) it states, with emphasis added, 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”.
11. The application should therefore have been made on or before [ ] to satisfy the Scheme’s time limits. The Tribunal however is entitled to consider the circumstances by which the late application was made, and it may accept late applications if those circumstances justify exceptional treatment.
12. The appeal panel has carefully considered the evidence adduced by the appellant. It has taken into account that the appellant was in the final stages of a funded PhD, and had been chosen to present a paper at an international conference. The appeal panel accepts that this was a great honour and that the appellant had exceptional responsibilities to prepare for this conference. The appeal panel considers that these circumstances for the appellant were such as to justify exceptional treatment, and in the circumstances the appeal panel will extend the time for the consideration of the application.
13. The applicant claims the sum of €2,673.33 in special damages, for which he has provided receipts as follows:
(a) Prescriptions: €11.64, €20.39 (€32.03);
(b) Train ticket [ ] [ ]: €21.30;
(c) Dental treatment: €2,520;
(d) Hospital Charge [ ] Hospital: €100.
The total of the items for which receipts have been provided is the sum of €2,673.33.
14. The appeal panel accepts that the injuries sustained by the appellant involve a personal injury sustained as a result of a crime of violence which occurred in the on [ ]. The appellant has established eligibility for assessment of compensation under the terms of the Scheme.
15. The appeal panel assesses special damages in the sum of €2,673.33.
16. The appeal panel makes an award to the appellant in the total sum of €2,673.33.
Elizabeth Maguire
Mema Byrne
Elizabeth Davey
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
4 July 2022