Foilsiú
51549 (12 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.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
In the matter of an appeal under paragraph 24 of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of an Appeal Panel
In private
Name of appellant: [ ]
Application number: 51549
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Heard on: [ ]
Location: The Appeal was conducted remotely in accordance with the instruction no. 2 issued by the Tribunal under paragraph 19 of the scheme.
Appeal panel: Damian Sheridan (Chair); Roderick Maguire B.L. and Georgina Robinson Solicitor.
Persons present and capacity: [ ] was present and represented himself.
1. The Appeal Panel (“the panel) convened in private, to consider an appeal brought by Mr [ ] (“the Appellant”), under the scheme of compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted (“the scheme”).
2. The panel had before it an appeal hearing bundle numbering pages 1 through to 67.
3. By Notice of Appeal dated the [ ], the Appellant appealed against the decision of the single member, who by decision dated the [ ] made no award.
1. The documentation bundle identifies that the Appellant complains that on the [ ] he was returning home in the early hours after socialising when he came across two gentlemen walking towards him. He did not make any particular contact with them but he received a bang to the back of the head, went down and was assaulted while on the ground. He attended An Garda Siochana who called an ambulance for him and brought him to hospital. The principle injury he has suffered relates to his left eye, insofar as the [ ] causing headaches and blurring.
2. The documentation tells the Tribunal that Mr [ ] was unemployed at the time but that he had a promise of a job to start very soon after the incident occurred.
3. For reasons associated with the medical injuries suffered in this assault he was unable to take up this role. At the time of the incident because he was on Jobseeker’s Allowance Mr [ ] also had the benefit of a medical card.
4. The documentation also identifies that Mr [ ] only managed to get to the Garda station at [ ] in the morning. The Garda statement indicates that at that juncture he appeared highly intoxicated. An Garda Siochana in addition noted that he was asked whether he wanted to make a statement a number of days later but declined on the basis as recorded by An Garda Siochana of “no complaint”.
5. Mr [ ] gave clear evidence consistent with his application form.
6. Regarding his attendance with An Garda Siochana on the morning of the incident he confirms that it must have been in or about [ ] a.m. when he got to the Garda Station but he disagrees with the assessment that he was highly intoxicated at the time. He is quite clear that he was confused having been assaulted and having received bangs to his head. He denies the intoxication. He accepts that he had been consuming intoxicants the night before but by the time he reached the Garda station he is quite clear in saying this was down to him being confused because he had been the victim of an assault. Again by reference to the Garda assessment that he was unable to remember how he received the injury when he presented at the Garda station, Mr [ ] again denies this indicating that he told them that he had been jumped from behind but what he did also tell them was that he did not know who had jumped him. He could not identify his assailant and this is where the distinction is. Regarding the statement made to An Garda Siochana on the [ ] the was making “no complaint”, he is quite clear in his version of this that what was meant by “no complaint” was that he was not taking the matter further because he could not in any way identify his assailants.
7. Regarding the physical injuries suffered by Mr [ ] he indicated that he was told to avoid work for a period after the incident because he had swelling on the back of his eye arising from the assault. He measures this period as no more than six weeks. In addition he indicates that he felt nervous in public for a period also.
8. Mr [ ] confirms that he had worked as a [ ] in the [ ] in the years up to [ ] but had lost his job owing to the downturn in the economy and was unemployed at the time but was an experienced [ ]. He also has indicated that despite a period of unemployment in or around the time of the assault he returned to employment and has consistently maintained employment since in or about [ ].
9. He had in or about six trips to hospital for outpatient appointments, where he assisted the persons who brought him there by paying for their petrol or diesel. Given where he resides that was a considerable distance to and from the respective hospitals of between 100 kilometres and 50 kilometres.
10. Mr [ ] confirms that he did not receive any correspondence from An Garda Siochana outlining the existence of the scheme. He only became aware of the scheme after [ ] when he was in the company of a friend or colleague who indicated that the scheme existed. This was a surprise to Mr [ ] in circumstances where he felt he would have to be able identify the person who assaulted him in order to succeed in any such claim. This is the reason provided for the delay in the lodging of the application to the Tribunal outside of the three month period. The Tribunal notes that the applications received in or about four months and two weeks after the occurrence of the assault.
11. In the first instance the appeal panel accept that the Appellant was the victim of a crime criminally inflicted and suffered personal injury as a result. Furthermore the Tribunal accepts that he reported this to An Garda Siochana with haste. For reasons associated with his inability to identify his assailants the matter did not go any further.
12. For those reasons the appeal panel admits the Appellant’s claim to the scheme.
13. Thereafter there is the issue of the delay in the lodging of the application such that the application was only lodged a period of four months and two weeks after the occurrence of the assault, outside of the three month limitation period. The appeal panel accept the explanation provided by the Appellant and deem it to amount to exceptional circumstances so that the strict time limit will not be applied in this instance.
14. With regard to the application of paragraphs 12 and\or 13 of the scheme, where the possibility that the Appellant’s own actions may have led to his involvement in this incident, or that the nature of the life he was carrying on was one which would disentitle him to compensation, having listened to the evidence, the appeal panel are of the view that in the very specific circumstances as outlined in the oral evidence neither of these paragraphs have any relevance to this claim.
15. In circumstances where: the Appellant has indicated that he was unable to work for a period of six weeks; that he had been in receipt of income of in or about €400 - €450 per week prior to his unemployment and when he subsequently regained employment, the Tribunal calculate an amount of €2,700 in respect of loss of earnings. In the same six week period he was in receipt of social welfare of in or about €190 per week, totallying approximately €1,140, which must be deducted from the loss of earnings figure to give a net amount of €1,560.
16. In respect of mileage expenses the Tribunal note that the approximate mileage undertaken for hospital trips amounted to three trips of 100 kilometres and three trips of 50 kilometres giving an overall total of 450 kilometres. Using the Civil Service rate per kilometre as a measure of 41.80 cent per kilometre the Tribunal also awards the amount of €146.30 for mileage.
17. Thus the overall award is an amount of €1,706.30.
18. The Tribunal notes the taking by Mr [ ] of hypnotherapy in about 5 or more years after the occurrence of the incident at a cost, unvouched, of in or about €450. The Tribunal regards this expense as one that it cannot accept as wholly attributable to the occurrence of the incident on the basis of remoteness and thus disallows this claim.
Signed:
Damian Sheridan B.L.
Chairman, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
For and on behalf of the Appeal Panel
Dated 12 December 2023