Foilsiú
54325 (11 December 2023)
Ó Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
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: 54325
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ] (Received by the Tribunal [ ])
Decision outcome: The application is refused under para 21.
1. Miss [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In her application form, the applicant stated that she had suffered injury as a result of being assaulted by [ ], a person known to her, in [ ]. She stated that this assault occurred on [ ].
3. A report from An Garda Síochána was on file. The report stated that the applicant had reported to Gardaí that she had been the victim of a sexual assaults, on dates unknown, in the late [ ] – early [ ]. The alleged assaults, which comprised rapes and sexual assaults, occurred at her family home in [ ] and on another three occasions at the home of the applicant’s [ ] and [ ] in [ ], when the applicant was aged [ ] years of age. The alleged offender, [ ], was the applicant’s [ ]. Whether this is the same person who resided in [ ] at the material time or whether it was a different person is not immediately apparent from the file.
4. The report confirmed that the applicant made a complaint to Gardaí in [ ] and that, in consequence, the alleged offender was arrested and interviewed. The report went on to state that, in [ ], the applicant ‘withdrew her support’ for the investigation, indicated that she wished for the Gardaí to take no further action and moved to [ ]. The report further confirmed that, in [ ], following a request by the applicant, the matter was taken up again by Gardaí.
5. On [ ], Gardaí recorded a further statement from the applicant, and she signed a typed copy of her original statement which she made in [ ].
6. A prosecutorial decision, in [ ], made by the DPP not to prosecute the alleged offender was the subject of a review request made by the applicant in [ ]. The outcome of the review, which upheld the original decision not to prosecute, was communicated to the applicant in a letter by the DPP on [ ].
7. The applicant was dissatisfied with the manner in which the investigation was conducted by Gardaí initially. She made a complaint to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (‘GSOC’) in relation to the manner in which the investigating officer conducted the investigation when she first reported the matter to police in [ ]. There is correspondence on file passing between the applicant and GSOC, ending with a letter to the applicant from GSOC, dated [ ], which confirmed that a representative of GSOC had arranged to interview the original investigating officer who, at that time, had since retired. No further correspondence bearing on the issue was contained on file.
8. 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.’
9. 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.
10. In this instance, the application form ought to have been lodged with the Tribunal no later than by [ ]. In the event, the application form was received by the Tribunal in [ ]. As such, it was lodged approximately 24 years after the three-month time limit set out by the Scheme had expired.
11. At Section 2(f) of the application form, dealing with reasons for the late submission of the application for compensation, the applicant stated as follows: ‘No one told me or would help me and it's the time that it takes for people to say if they can help or not.’
12. The Tribunal is cognisant and takes notice of the very challenging circumstances in which the alleged victims of sexual assault often find themselves. This includes the debilitating trauma of sexual assault. It is now well recognised, as a consequence of trauma, that alleged victims of these type of offences often take a considerable period of time to engage with statutory agencies to seek justice and redress. It was with this knowledge to the forefront of its mind that the Tribunal approached the applicability, or otherwise, of paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
13. Having carefully considered the matter, the Tribunal could identify no circumstances justifying exceptional treatment which would permit the exercise of its discretion in favour of admitting the application under the Scheme.
14. The Tribunal therefore refused to admit the application under paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
15. As is her right, should the applicant exercise her right of appeal under the Scheme against this decision, an Appeal Panel might derive assistance from medical evidence which explains how the alleged sexual assaults for which the applicant applies for compensation has negatively impacted on her ability to make an application under the Scheme in accordance with the requisite timeframe.
16. The attention of the applicant is also drawn to the fact that, under the Scheme, there is no provision to award money damages for pain and suffering. If she wishes to proceed further, the applicant should formulate her claim in a manner which can be considered by an Appeal Panel.
17. NA.
18. NA.
19. NA.
20. Nil.
Conor Heaney
Chairperson, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
11 December 2023