Publication
53758 (10 November 2022)
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 [ ]
Application number: 53758
Name of applicant: [ ]
Date of incident: [ ]
Date application received: [ ]
Outcome: The Tribunal awards the Applicant the amount of €3,939.74 in relation to his claim.
The Applicant applied to the Tribunal arising from an unprovoked violent attack which occurred in the early hours of the morning. Three males arrived at [ ] where the Applicant was and two of them attacked the Applicant using a baseball bat and a golf club. He was hit numerous times on the body, legs and arms by both men and was chased around the car park. He was threatened with a Stanley knife. He escaped, and the men went to his house where they [ ].
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 his 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 18 October 2022 remotely to hear the Applicant’s appeal. The Applicant represented himself and his mother also attended. 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 an unprovoked attack at approximately [ ] on [ ] on [ ] as outlined above.
He suffered numerous bruises and abrasions to his chest, abdomen, right forearm, right knee and right ankle. Most noticeable was a clear imprint of a golf club on his abdomen. Photographs were submitted of the injuries, as well as [ ].
He received physiotherapy for muscle spasm and pain in his back. He was an apprentice [ ] at the time and though his injuries initially settled, and he went back to work after a week, when he resumed full duties at work which involved a certain amount of more physical labour such as clearing materials, he was adversely affected and was out sick from work. He did not have paid sick leave. He saw a specialist at the end of November and had an MRI. The only thing that they could attribute the pain to was the injury. He had a lot of pain and became very cautious. He has had a number of injections to his back but this has restricted what he can do. He is now working in [ ], following advice to stay away from construction which he enjoyed, and has no loss of earnings. He is still office based, and has had a series of cortisone injections, approximately 3 in the last year.
In the initial aftermath, he moved away from the family home to an address in [ ] and had a lengthy commute to work, as he was threatened by the assailants. He still does not know why he was assaulted. He eventually moved back to living with his family.
The Applicant’s mother said that the family got cctv and gates installed as a result of the assault and [ ]. Her son continued to get texts. The Gardaí provided some monitoring for a period of time. She had enquired about the compensation scheme but believed that she had been told that here was no time frame for submission of application by the citizen’s information service. She submitted a contemporaneous note supporting this phone conversation.
The Applicant had no convictions. The assailants were convicted on [ ] having pleaded guilty. €[ ] compensation was refused by the Applicant.
A number of reports were submitted outlining the applicant’s medical and work history.
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 five months and 14 days after the injury.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant suffered a painful injury, the extent of which only became fully apparent towards the end of October. The Tribunal accepts that his mother enquired about compensation and was incorrectly told that there was no time limit in relation to the scheme. The Tribunal therefore finds that there were circumstances to justify exceptional treatment and admits the application for consideration.
The Tribunal notes the on the basis of the documents submitted, the Applicant did not have a lower earnings in [ ] than [ ], and was in receipt of illness benefit which the Tribunal would have to deduct form any Award. He submitted that his weekly gross earnings were €248.43 while apprenticed, and the Tribunal notes that his yearly earning did not fall below this rate. In addition, the Applicant stated that he has not been adversely affected in terms of income in relation to his career, though he may be restricted because of the injury. The Tribunal therefore does not award any amount for loss of earnings.
The Tribunal awards the vouched expenses of the Applicant being €1,694.74 in relation to the vouched expenses submitted with the application. The Tribunal also awards €845 in relation to the vouching submitted on [ ] at page 49 of the file.
The Applicant has sought the costs of the additional travel to work necessitated by his moving away from the danger of a further attack, which he stated was 5,400 km. While the Tribunal has every sympathy with the actions that he took to avoid a further attack, the Tribunal does not consider that any expenditure was in respect of personal injuries sustained, and as such does not qualify under Art. 1 of the Scheme.
However, the Tribunal does consider that the travel necessitated for attendance at medical appointments is compensatable as being in respect of personal injuries. This was claimed in relation to travel to practitioners in [ ]. The Tribunal awards €1,400 as a contribution towards the unvouched costs incurred.
This gives an amount of €3,939.74.
The Tribunal is mandated under Art. 15 to deduct any amount paid by way of compensation. The Applicant put forward a rational and excusable reason for refusing the amount offered by way of compensation to him in the course of a criminal trial of the offenders. He gave evidence of not wanting to have any further dealings at all with the offenders and in the particular circumstances of this case and the evidence of the Applicant, the tribunal finds this reasonable. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not deduct this amount from the awarded to the Applicant.
The Tribunal awards the Applicant the amount of €3,939.74 in relation to his claim.
Roderick Maguire, Tricia Sheehy Skeffington, Nora Pat Stewart
10 November 2022