Publication
53469 (13 November 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 24 of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of an Appeal Panel
Name of appellant: [ ]
Application number: 53469
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Heard on: 19 September 2023
Location: The appeal was conducted remotely in accordance with Instruction Number 2 issued by the Tribunal under paragraph 19 of the Scheme.
Appeal panel: Ms. Georgina Robinson, Solicitor; Mr. Peter Stafford BL; Ms. Patricia Sheehy Skeffington BL
Decision: No award
1. The Tribunal convened to consider an appeal brought by [ ] (‘the Appellant’) under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. The Tribunal had before it an appeal hearing bundle numbering pages 1-38. The Tribunal also had the benefit of written legal submissions and oral evidence from the Appellant at the appeal hearing. Upon the invitation of the Appeal Panel and following the conclusion of the hearing the Appellant furnished the Tribunal with further documentation the particulars of which are noted below.
3. By a Notice of Appeal dated 8 April 2022, the Appellant appealed against the decision of a Single Member who, by a written decision dated 9 January 2022, made no award and held that the Applicant did not suffer personal injury as a result of a crime of violence.
4. At the outset of the hearing the Panel heard the Applicant’s evidence as to the incident giving rise to this Application. The Applicant described being present in the kitchen of [ ]. The Applicant was making a cup of tea when to his annoyance [ ] threw the contents of his cup into the sink. In annoyance the Applicant stated that he then proceeded to [ ] the other party. The Applicant stated under examination that he did not intend to strike the party with [ ] he merely wished to mark his frustration with this other party (who had thrown the contents of his cup down the sink). In any case following [ ] (commenced by the Applicant) an altercation ensured between the parties during the course of which the Applicant is said to have suffered personal injury.
5. In regard to this issue of the late submission the Appellant elected to rely on his prior written submission namely that he was unaware that the Scheme existed and it did not occur to him initially to take legal advice. His legal advisors submitted as [ ], the delay in the making of this application was minimal and that a three-month period allowed for the making of such applications was not achievable in the circumstances of this particular applicant. The Tribunal as a panel accepted this submission and extended time of the making of this application.
6. The appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the investigation carried out by An Garda Siochana and stated that witness statements should have been taken from [ ].
7. Based on the Applicant’s own evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant was in fact the aggressor in this case and that any injury he suffered was not as a result of a crime of violence. The Applicant’s own evidence accords with the account given by An Garda Siochana (who viewed cctv footage of the incident).
8. As a result of the aforementioned investigation An Garda Siochana determined that the other party in this case acted in self defence and no crime was perpetrated upon the applicant. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is not entitled to compensation pursuant to the terms of the Scheme and no award is made.
For the Appeal Panel:
Georgina Robinson, Solicitor
For the Appeal Panel
13 November 2023