Foilsiú
53821 (17 May 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
Appeal Hearing - In private
Appellant: [ ]
Application number: 53821
Date of incident: [ ]
Date received: [ ]
Solicitor: [ ]
Represented by: [ ]
Appeal members: Elizabeth Davey BL (Chair), Elizabeth Maguire SC, Majella Twomey BL
Heard on: Tuesday 17 May 2022
Location: Remote hearing in accordance with Instruction No. 2 issued by the tribunal under paragraph 19 of the Scheme
1. The Appeal Panel (‘the Panel’) convened, in private, to consider an appeal brought by [ ] (‘the appellant’) under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. By a notice of appeal, dated [ ], the appellant appealed against the decision of a Single Member who, by a decision dated [ ] made no award in the matter and made a finding that the application was out of time.
3. The appellant was a victim of a [ ] and assault that took place on [ ].
4. The perpetrator of the assault and [ ] received a sentence of [ ] at [ ] Criminal Court on [ ].
5. The appellant, who was working at the time, was out of work from [ ] until [ ]. While he was out of work he received illness benefit and disablement benefit.
6. The appellant submitted two dentist receipts with his claim however it is not apparent that the dental work carried out had any connection to the assault. The appellant’s statement to the gardaí does not reference injuries to his teeth and the letter from his dentist does not link the dental work to the assault.
7. An invoice from [ ] Hospital was also submitted with the claim.
8. The incident of the [ ] was reported to the gardaí and a criminal prosecution was brought. The perpetrator of the crime against the appellant was sentenced to [ ] years' imprisonment.
9. The panel is satisfied that the appellant 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. Accordingly, the application is admitted for consideration under the Scheme.
10. The appellant did not attend the appeal hearing.
11. The appellant’s solicitor addressed the panel on the matter of delay. The application form was received by the tribunal on [ ], approximately seven months after the incident.
12. The appellant’s solicitor relied on the correspondence that had passed between his office and the tribunal. He referred to a letter dated [ ] which was sent by registered post to the tribunal offices. That letter set out that the appellant had been unlawfully assaulted on [ ] and that they were formally notifying the tribunal of the appellant’s intention to pursue a claim in the matter under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. The appellant’s solicitor asked for receipt of the notification.
13. By letter dated [ ] the tribunal acknowledged the letter dated [ ] and the intention was noted.
14. Thereafter the appellant’s solicitor told the panel that five letters were sent to the appellant’s employer seeking a certificate of loss of earnings. Those letters were available to the panel. When that information was eventually provided to the solicitor, the application form was sent in together with the certificate of loss of earnings. The appellant’s solicitor told the panel that it was his understanding that notification of an intention to pursue a claim was sufficient to stop the clock and that his office waited for a full application before submitting the application form.
15. Further correspondence passed between the appellant’s solicitor and the tribunal about various matters before the claim was sent for a single member decision.
16. The appellant’s solicitor sent submissions to the tribunal after the single member decision was delivered. Those submissions explained in detail the reasons for the delay. The appellant’s solicitor spoke to those submissions at the appeal hearing.
17. Paragraph 21 of the Scheme provides “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.”
18. In this matter the appellant’s solicitor sent a notification of intention to pursue a claim within the three-month time frame however the completed application form was not received by the tribunal until almost seven months after the incident giving rise to the application.
19. The panel is satisfied that the particular circumstances in this matter justify exceptional treatment. It was not clear from the letter from the tribunal to the appellant’s solicitor dated [ ] that the notice of intention was not sufficient to stop the clock. The correspondence that passed thereafter did not address the matter either. Therefore, the panel admits the claim for a determination.
20. The panel does not accept that the two dental receipts relate to out-of-pocket expenses that arose in connection with the assault.
21. The panel does not accept the invoice from the A&E Department at [ ] as proof that the account was settled and that the appellant had a vouched out of pocket expenses in this regard.
22. The panel accepts that the appellant had a loss of earnings of €9,329.23 Net. The appellant received €4,208.50 in illness benefit and disablement benefit while he was out of work. The panel is required under the Scheme to deduct any social welfare payments from the loss of earnings and this gives the figure of €5,120.73.
23. The panel awards the sum of €5,120.73 to the appellant for his loss of earnings as a result of the assault.
Signed: Elizabeth Davey, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
For and on behalf of the Appeal Panel
Date: 17 May 2022