Foilsiú
54582 (3 August 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: 54582
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision/outcome: The applicant is awarded the sum of €3,145.70 under the Scheme.
1. Mr [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In his application for compensation under the Scheme, received on [ ], the applicant stated that he had suffered injuries on [ ] in Dublin on [ ] when he was assaulted and had a tooth knocked out.
3. The application was made within time, on the correct form and an initial report to the gardaí was made on the date of the incident.
4. A Garda report dated [ ] indicates that on the night of the incident the applicant flagged down a garda, that he ‘presented himself as a victim of an assault’, and then went to [ ] Hospital for treatment. The Garda states that she sought CCTV and sought a statement from the applicant, which despite a second request was not forthcoming. The Garda stated that she told the applicant that there was no CCTV, no statement of complaint and no witnesses and no suspect identified at that time. She reports that the applicant stated that he did not wish to continue with the investigation and, as such, it was concluded.
5. By email of [ ] the applicant stated that he had been assaulted by ‘multiple men’ on leaving college on the night in question, that his tooth had been knocked out, ant that his friend’s phone was stolen. The applicant asserts that the Garda investigation was closed because of the lack of CCTV. He makes no mention of having been asked to make a statement and there being a lack of witnesses which also prevented the investigation going forward, on the Garda’s account.
6. Two further documents of significance are on file. The first is a letter from the investigating garda addressed ‘to whom it may concern’ and dated [ ]. It certifies that on [ ] the applicant ‘reported’ and assault; that an investigation took place and that no suspect was identified. The second is a letter from the gardai to the applicant informing of details of the investigation as a consequence of ‘your recent report of a crime’.
7. On [ ] the Tribunal Secretariat wrote to the applicant enclosing the Garda Report. This email also draws the applicant’s attention to Article 23 of the Scheme and seeks his comments. Paragraph 23 of the Scheme states that ‘to qualify’ for compensation an applicant must indicate to the Tribunal that the incident is subject of criminal proceedings or was reported to the Gardaí without delay. This qualifying criteria may be dispensed with where it is clear that the applicant has made all reasonable efforts to notify the Gardaí and to cooperate with them.
8. On [ ] the applicant responded to this letter. He states that he reported the incident within hours of it occurring; that his friend whose phone was stolen also reported the incident; that an arrangement to make a statement at the Garda station was cancelled due to COVID restrictions; and that this was never re-organised but that the applicant would have been happy to make any such statement.
9. The Scheme at Article 23 requires that an incident is ‘reported’. It is clear that in this case the incident was reported, but that for various reasons the normal statement of complaint that would have followed an initial report was not made. The Tribunal accepts that this was not due to a lack of willingness on the part of the applicant, and indeed this case is not one in which a statement was rescinded (which may also operate to rescind the fact of the reporting).
10. From the foregoing, I am satisfied that the applicant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that he was a victim of a crime of violence and sustained personal injury which is directly attributable to that crime of violence. I also find that he met all procedural requirements in making is claim and therefore admit the application for consideration under the Scheme.
11. The applicant detailed the treatment as requiring a tooth implant which would require onwards monitoring and root canal treatment. He also stated in his correspondence received on [ ] that the experience had been traumatic, painful and frustrating. The Tribunal accepts and acknowledges that the applicant’s experience of being a victim of a crime of violence was traumatic and painful. However the Tribunal is not entitled to compensate him for pain and suffering: this is expressly excluded from its powers under Article 6(e) of the Scheme. This decision necessarily focuses on expenses because monetary losses are what the Tribunal is empowered to award. This should not be seen as diminishing the impact of the applicant’s experience of the assault in any way.
12. On his application form the applicant stated that his expenses included medical (in the sum of €120); medicine (€100.42) and ongoing dental costs which to date had amounted to €130. His supplementary communication received on [ ] gives a further history of the dental treatment in circumstances in which the first treatments to save a tooth were unsuccessful, an unknown allergy which required steroid treatment to enable further dental treatment, and an implant with bone grafts which was thereafter required.
13. While there is no correspondence from a dentist on file setting out the extent of the injury and the most appropriate treatment plan, it is clear from the garda report and copies of letters between medics that the applicant lost a tooth in an assault and required treatment for that injury.
14. The following table sets out the expenses claimed by the applicant for his dental and medical treatment and assesses each claim for compensation according with the evidence submitted on file.
| Item | Detail | Discussion | Award |
| [ ] (€60); [ ] (€60) [ ] (€30) fee from [ ] Clinic | Appears to be fees from a GP clinic | While the claim focuses on dental treatment, the first visit stipulated here appears to be within a week of the assault and is thus allowable. | €60 |
| [ ] Dental Practice | ‘Dental treatment’ €60 | Dental treatment at this practice is not mentioned in the applicant’s narrative. It is not clear what this treatment was specifically for, and thus is declined. | |
| [ ] [ ] Dental Hospital €70 | For ‘O/S RM20’. Relates to a bill from [ ] for ‘emergency treatment’ | This is the emergency treatment following the assault and is thus fully allowable. | €70. |
| [ ] Dentist €120 | Fee paid for dental treatment | This was for root canal treatment as a consequence of the assault and is allowable. | €120 |
| [ ] Dental Surgery €30 | ‘1 x check-up’ | It is unclear what this was for, and does not fit into the treatment narrative for the assault claimed and is thus declined. | |
| [ ] [ ] Dental Clinic €900 | Receipt for payment for dental implant and crown front tooth | This treatment was required as a consequence of the assault. | €900 |
| [ ] Receipt from [ ] | €350 noted as paid in full, for denture made and fitted. | It is unclear what clinic this was from and how it fits in with the treatment plan and is thus declined. | |
| [ ] €100; [ ] €1,800 [ ] Dental Clinic | First stage root canal; extraction, implant, placement and bone graft | This treatment was required as a consequence of the assault. | €1,900 |
| Prescription claim form [ ] | €21.24 Desloratadine and Clarithrocymin | It appears that this is the prescription for the steroids required to lessen the allergic reaction for dental treatment, and is thus allowable | €21.24 |
| Prescription claim form [ ] | €15.73 Telfast | This is a drug required to reduce an allergic reaction, and appears to have been required to continue dental treatment | €15.73 |
| Prescription claim form [ ] | deltacortril and telfast; €18.94 | These drugs were required to support dental treatment | €18.94 |
| Prescription claim form [ ] | Oramox and Brufen €22.66 | It is not clear how this antibiotic and pain relief links with the dental treatment claimed. | |
| Prescription claim form [ ] | €11.06 for Flagyl ?? Tabs | It is not clear what this treatment was, or how it was linked to the treatment claimed. | |
| Prescription claims form [ ] | €39.79 for Diclac, paracetamol, deltacortril and telfast; | The date of this prescription does not appear to align with the dates of treatment received, though appears to be for the steroids to support it. On the balance of probabilities it is most likely linked to the treatment of the injuries caused by the assault. | €39.79 |
| Prescription claim form [ ] | Deltacortril €10.21 | It is unclear how this prescription fits in with the timeline of treatment. | |
| Prescription claim forms | Illegible dates and descriptions; for €7.50 and €28.07 | ||
| Total allowed expenses: | €3,145.70 |
15. As will be clear from the above, the treatment and prescriptions allowed are those which can be found, on the balance of probabilities, to arise from the treatment of the injuries sustained when the applicant was assaulted. The timeline of treatment has been quite difficult to piece together. The burden of proving the claim is on the applicant and as such, while in some instances the probability was found that the treatment was linked to the injury, in other instances the link was too vague to make out.
16. As a result, the award of compensation to the applicant for the injuries which were criminally inflicted on him on [ ] is €3,145.70.
Tricia Sheehy Skeffington
Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
3 August 2022