Foilsiú
F/54635 (15 July 2022)
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: F/54635
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The application is refused under paragraph 1.
1. [ ] has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In her application for compensation under the Scheme, received on the [ ], the Applicant claims compensation for a fatal accident relating to her husband, [ ] who was assaulted in their home on the [ ], and who died [ ] later.
3. There is a Garda report on file dated the [ ]. The report states that on the night in question, a man called [ ] arrived at [ ] home and assaulted him with a [ ]. [ ] was removed to [ ] General Hospital. He returned home a few days later. The report expressly states that [ ] death was not as a result of an act of criminal violence. The perpetrator was charged with [ ]. He was convicted at [ ] Circuit Court on the [ ]. He received a [ ]. No compensation was paid.
4. The Applicant in this case did not bring the application within the required 3-month time limit as set out in paragraph 21 of the scheme. The application was not, in fact, submitted until some [ ] years after the incident.
5. The Tribunal wrote to the Applicant on the [ ], asking her why the application was [ ] years outside of the 3-month time limit. Furthermore, the Applicant was asked for the names of all dependents of the deceased along with birth certificates for each dependent. The Applicant did not supply the names of any dependents.
6. The Applicant responded by way of letter dated the [ ]. She said that she was attending the Citizen’s Advice Centre for another matter, and she was told about the scheme. She said that an information sheet was read to her by the Centre’s, now retired Solicitor, which stated that there was no time limit in cases where a death occurred. The Applicant supplied the relevant excerpt of information from the Citizen’s Advice Centre, outlining same.
7. Paragraph 21 of the scheme 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’.
8. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has provided an objectively reasonable explanation as to why she did not comply with the three-month time limit. Official sources informed her that there was no time limit for fatal claims. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that this set of circumstances justifies exceptional treatment, which would allow the Tribunal to extend time.
9. Paragraph 1 of the scheme states that the 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’. It goes onto state that ‘the word “injury”, as used in the Scheme, includes a fatal injury’.
10. The Tribunal accepts that the deceased in this case was subjected to a very distressing criminal attack [ ] prior to his death. It is also accepted that the perpetrator was charged and convicted in relation to this vicious attack. The Tribunal notes that the deceased, unfortunately, died [ ], on the [ ]. The question for the Tribunal, therefore, is whether the deceased death was ‘directly attributable’ to the crime of violence on the [ ].
11. The Tribunal must look at all the objective evidence before it, in this respect, in particular, the death certificate and the Garda reports. The Tribunal notes that the Garda Report dated the [ ] expressly states that ‘[ ] death wasn’t the result of an act of criminal violence’. This evidence is strong, however, it is only one strand of information, which the Tribunal must assess. The Tribunal also notes that the death certificate of the deceased, which arose following a Coroner’s inquest, [ ], sets of the cause of the death of the deceased. The cause of death is noted as ‘[ ], accidental’.
12. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant disputes the cause of death in the death certificate and is of the view that [ ] were adversely affected following the assault and, therefore, his death was directly connected to the said assault. It is noted that the Applicant wrote to the Coroners office on a number of occasions, seeking clarification in relation to her concerns relating to the cause of death and in particular [ ], in her report. The Applicant received a response from [ ], on the [ ], stating that a full inquiry was carried out at the time of [ ] death and stating that she could not assist the Applicant any further. The Coroner advised that Applicant that if she wanted to reopen the inquest that she would have to contact the Department of Justice and seek consent from the Minister.
13. The Tribunal notes that there is no evidence that the Applicant followed up on this letter from Coroner [ ].
14. Having weighed and evaluated all the information before it, the Tribunal finds that the objective evidence all suggests that the deceased death was not directly attributed to the attack on the [ ]. While the Tribunal fully acknowledges that the deceased was subjected to a very distressing attack on that date, the evidence before it, unfortunately, suggests that there were, ultimately, multiple reasons as to the cause of death of the deceased, as outlined in the death certificate.
15. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant’s husband suffered a serious assault on the [ ], and that he, sadly, died [ ] later. The Tribunal wishes to express its sincere condolences to the Applicant in relation to this very sad set of circumstances. The Tribunal, however, is confined by the scheme and finds that there is no clear evidence before it to show that the death of [ ] on the [ ], was directly attributable to the crime of violence on the [ ]. If the Applicant were in a position to provide such evidence, the Tribunal would be in a stronger position to provide an award.
Majella Twomey
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
15 July 2022