50337 (13 December 2024)

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: 50337

Date of incident: [ ]

Date of application: [ ] - received by the Tribunal [ ]

Decision outcome: Refused under para 1 of the Scheme.

1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).

2. At the time of the incident, which is the subject of the application, the applicant was aged [ ]. She is now [ ] years of age.

3. In her application form, signed by the applicant and her father (given that she was at the time a minor), it is stated:

‘On [ ] while playing by the woods in [ ] and after finishing a game of manhunt [ ] throw (sic) a stone at me for no apparent reason. I phoned my father and went to A&E at [ ] Hospital and transferred to [ ] Hospital by ambulance.’

4. The applicant received both inpatient and outpatient hospital treatment and was also treated by her GP. The medical evidence establishes that the applicant sustained a very serious injury to her [ ] eye as a result of the incident. The most recent report on file from the applicant’s GP confirms that she has been rendered permanently functionally blind in her [ ] eye where she had prior to the incident normal vision in that eye. There is also on file other supporting medical evidence together with reports from a vocational assessor and from an actuary.

Was the applicant’s injury directly attributable to a crime of violence?

5. Paragraph 1 of the Scheme provides as follows:

‘The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal…may pay compensation in accordance with this Scheme in respect of personal injury where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence…’

6. The term, ‘crime of violence’ is not defined by the Scheme.

7. In considering the issue, the Tribunal paid careful regard to the judgment of Ferriter J in Earls v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal [2022] IEHC 679 (‘Earls’)

8. As referred to in Earls, as its starting point, the Tribunal relied on the guidance in R(Jones) v FTT [2013] 2 AC 48, in which Lord Hope stated:

‘It is for the tribunal which decides the case to consider whether the words “a crime of violence” do or do not apply to the facts which have been proved. Built into that phrase, there are two questions that the tribunal must consider. The first is whether, having regard to the facts which have been proved, a criminal offence has been committed. The second is whether, having regard to the nature of the criminal act, the offence that was committed was a crime of violence.’

9. When considering the question of whether a crime is a crime of violence, it was important to consider the nature of the crime, not its likely consequences (R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb [1987] QB 74). While some cases may call for an examination of the actual or probable consequences of the criminal act, this is relevant only so as to shed light on the nature of the criminal act and for no other purpose (C, Petitioner [1999] SC 551).

10. The Tribunal had regard to the report from An Garda Síochána, dated [ ], which stated in material part:

‘On [ ] received a serious eye injury while playing at [ ]. On [ ] Garda [ ] of [ ] Garda Station received a call at 10.30 pm to attend at [ ] home of [ ]. On arrival at this address Gda [ ] was met by [ ], father of [ ], who informed Gda [ ]. Unfortunately one of these stones deflected off a tree and struck [ ] in her [ ] eye causing her injury and the loss of the sight of her [ ] eye.’

11. Having carefully considered the available information, and applying the legal principles, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it had been established, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant had been the victim of a crime of violence. More particularly, the Tribunal considered that the facts did not establish, to the requisite standard, that a crime had been committed.

12. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided that the applicant was ineligible to receive compensation under the Scheme.

13. Notwithstanding its decision, the Tribunal wished to convey its sincere sympathy to the applicant in relation to the injury which she sustained as a result of the incident which, the Tribunal had no doubt, has had an enduring effect on her.

14. N/A.

15. N/A.

16. N/A.

17. Nil.

Conor Heaney

Chairperson, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

13 December 2024