Foilsiú
54685 (9 May 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 appeal under paragraph 24 of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of an Appeal Panel
Name of appellant: Ms. [ ]
Application number: 54685
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Heard on: [ ]
Location: The appeal was conducted remotely in accordance with Instruction Number 2 issued by the Tribunal under paragraph 19 of the Scheme.
Appeal panel: Ms. Georgina Robinson Solicitor; Mr. Roderick Maguire BL; Ms. Patricia Sheehy Skeffington BL
Decision: The Tribunal makes an award in the sum of €3,170.76
1. The Tribunal convened to consider an appeal brought by Ms. [ ] (‘the Appellant’) under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. The Tribunal had before it an appeal hearing bundle numbering pages 1-181. The Tribunal also had the benefit of oral evidence from the Appellant at the appeal hearing. Upon the invitation of the Appeal Panel and following the conclusion of the hearing the Appellant furnished the Tribunal with further documentation the particulars of which are noted below.
3. By a Notice of Appeal dated the [ ], the Appellant appealed against the decision of a Single Member who, by a written decision dated the [ ], made no award pursuant to paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
4. At the outset of the hearing the Panel accepted that the Appellant was the innocent victim of a crime of violence. The Panel noted the assistance of An Garda Siochana as provided to the Appellant post the traumatic incident and further noted the Appellant submitted the application to the Tribunal on the [ ], which was a few weeks after the three-month timeline for submitting applications under the Scheme.
5. In regard to this issue of the late submission the Appellant elected to rely on her prior written submission contained within the appeal booklet. She expressed the view that she was under the impression her written submissions were sufficient in this regard and that the sole issue which she understood was being decided upon was that of whether the application was to be accepted for consideration despite the late submission of same. She expressed the view that the delay in the making of this application was minimal and that a three-month period allowed for the making of such applications was not realistic in circumstances such as her own where she was severely traumatised in the wake of the incident.
6. The appellant was advised by the Panel that she could elect to limit her submissions on the issue of delay to those presented in writing and appearing within the appeals booklet however the tribunal (should she be successful in obtaining an extension of time for the making of the application) would thereafter move on to consider the receipts for out-of-pocket expenditure submitted as they relate to the crime of violence concerned. As it appeared that it had been unclear to the Appellant that such analysis of expenses was part of the appeal process, the Panel indicated that it would consider any further documents that the Appellant wished to submit after the hearing.
7. As indicated above, the submission of the application more than three months after the incident in question is an issue in this case. Paragraph 20 of the Scheme (formerly para 21) states (with emphasis added):
“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. In order to assess whether a late application is admissible, the Tribunal must determine whether there are circumstances which on its consideration, justify exceptional treatment. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the Scheme is remedial in nature and circumstances giving rise to exceptional treatment should be interpreted in a “broad, liberal and generous manner responsive to the circumstances of the victim of crime in each case”: Bowes v CICT [2022] IEHC 703 [70].
9. In her overall submissions the appellant listed two factors which had impeded the timely submission of the application form. These were:
(i) Trauma and mental health impacts preventing her from functioning properly for more than three months;
(ii) The COVID-19 pandemic made it difficult for the appellant to access legal advice and she states in her written submission that she was only made aware of the Scheme by a solicitor on the [ ].
10. In relation to the preliminary issue of the late submission of this application the Panel is satisfied in accordance with the jurisprudence as set out within the Bowes decision, that the circumstances of this particular appellant as they relate to this particular application (to include but not limited to the mental trauma suffered by the appellant and described by her in her written submissions) operates such as to justify exceptional treatment of this late application. The application is therefore admitted for consideration under the terms of the scheme.
11. It is clear from the Appellant’s written and oral evidence that she was the innocent victim of a violent assault and was caused to suffer injury on the date in question. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal established under Paragraph 17 of the Scheme “may pay ex gratia compensation in respect of personal injury where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence, or, as provided for in Paragraph 4, to circumstances arising from the action of the victim in assisting or attempting to assist the prevention of crime or the saving of human life”.
12. The Appeal Panel then moves to consider the losses incurred as they relate to the crime of violence concerned. In doing so the Panel is bound by the terms of the Scheme. The Scheme is set up to compensate for expenses arising from criminally inflicted injuries, but it must first find evidence of the expenses and second evidence that links those expenses to injuries sustained as a consequence of a crime of violence.
13. The Appellant confirmed that she did not suffer a loss of earnings in circumstances where she was attending for interview in [ ] on the date of incident.
14. The Appellant was given an opportunity to address the vouching documentation submitted such as same related to the injuries suffered directly attributable to the crime of violence - to this end the Appeal Panel heard the Appellant’s oral evidence that despite the absence of a reference to the requirement for psychological therapy in the medical evidence submitted, the said therapy was a recommendation of the Appellant's GP and this was later confirmed in writing to the tribunal by way of a documentation submitted to the panel in the aftermath of the hearing.
15. Accordingly, the Appeal Panel is satisfied that the appellant is entitled to recover expenditure incurred in respect of same in the following manner:
Invoice dated [ ] €150
Invoice dated [ ] €400
Invoice dated [ ] €200
Invoice dated [ ] €250
Invoice dated [ ] €500
Invoice dated [ ] €100
Total: €1,600
In addition to the above sums the following receipts for out-of-pocket expenditure are accepted by the Appeal Panel:
Invoices re: attendance at A and E Department [ ] Hospital [ ] €80; [ ] €80 and [ ] €100
Invoices re attendance at [ ] Medical Centre [ ] €60; [ ] €60; [ ] €60; [ ] €60; [ ] €40; [ ] €70; [ ] €60; [ ] €149; [ ] €60; [ ] €50, [ ] €100; [ ] €160
Invoice dated [ ] re: replacement eye glasses €304.01
Total: €1,493.01
16. Medical Expenses in regard to prescription medicine are allowed as per the MEP’s submitted as follows:
[ ] - €103.27
[ ] – €174.48
17. The Appellant submitted invoices for expenditure relating to [ ] issues. Having sought detail from the Appellant in relation to this, having deliberated upon the topic and having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Appeal Panel does not accept that the expenditure incurred in regard to such issues was directly attributable to the crime of violence and resultant injury. The Appeal Panel notes that the Appellant herself stated that no doctor would confirm that the injuries sustained caused her [ ]. The Appellant argued that she had not had the condition prior to the incident, and that it had developed after it.
18. A letter from the Appellant’s GP dated [ ] states that following the incident the Appellant came for a follow-up appointment “with anxiety symptoms and acute stress related to the incident and [ ]”. It appears to the Appeal Panel that while the stress and anxiety is clearly linked to the incident here, the [ ] is not. The Panel notes that treatment recommended by the [ ] Department in [ ] of [ ] was directed towards [ ] medications, diet and exercise. On the submitted papers there are a number of potential reasons proffered by and to medics for the onset of the Appellant’s [ ], which include stress from the incident, but also diet and a need for more exercise. The Appeal Panel does not doubt that the Appellant firmly believes that her [ ] was triggered by the assault. However it appears to the Appeal Panel that there were a number of potential reasons for the onset of this condition and the fact that no medical evidence makes a direct link between the incident and the condition is significant.
19. Neither does the Appeal Panel accept the invoices submitted regarding the appellant’s flight to [ ] and notes that no evidence was adduced to satisfy the Panel that the expenditure directly relates to the crime of violence which occurred. Expenses referred to as ‘[ ] Expenses’ are not allowed pursuant to this same reasoning.
20. Furthermore as per the reasoning set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 above, the Appeal Panel does not accept the invoices submitted by the Appellant regarding postage of medication or health supplements purchased by the appellant other than those outlined upon the Medical Expense Printouts submitted.
21. Legal Costs are not recoverable under the terms of the Scheme (at paragraph 26) and accordingly the receipt submitted by the Appellant post the hearing of this matter in respect of a solicitor’s consultation is not allowed.
22. It was confirmed by the Appellant that she was in receipt of compensation in the sum of €200 from the offender in this case. This sum is deductible from the total award calculated.
23. The total allowable loss in this case is €3,370.76. Applying the necessary deduction in regard to compensation previously received of €200 – the total award to the Appellant is €3,170.76.
For the Appeal Panel:
Georgina Robinson, Solicitor
Member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
9 May 2023