55009 (6 October 2023)

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: #55009

Date of incident: [ ]

Date of application: [ ] (Received by the Tribunal [ ])

Decision outcome: The application refused under para 20.

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 form, the applicant stated that he had suffered injury in [ ] on [ ] at as a result of being assaulted. The applicant stated that he was the victim of a random and unprovoked assault by a group of unidentified individuals who numbered 4 to 7 in total. The applicant was struck to the jaw as a result of the assault upon him. The applicant was spoken to by a paramedic in a passing ambulance who advised the applicant that all was fine with his jaw. He stated that he was further advised by the paramedic not to attend a hospital emergency department (‘[ ]’) for treatment as such a visit would not be much use, it would be assumed by [ ] staff that he had consumed alcohol and that, in any event he would not be seen at the [ ] until the following morning. The applicant stated that he had not consumed alcohol.

3. The applicant further stated: ‘As it was evident to me that not all was well with my jaw, I decided to take the first flight to [ ] to get treatment. In [ ], a fractured jaw was diagnosed and I was operated on that same day and again two days later.’

4. The applicant set out the medical treatment which he received in [ ] and confirmed that he had sustained a fractured jaw and a severed nerve as a result of the injury. The applicant claimed for the costs associated with travel to [ ] for medical treatment together with medical bills which, at the time of the application, amounted to €8,745.24. There was a further claim in the sum of €7,920 for the extra term which the applicant spent at an educational establishment as a result of the assault.

5. In material part, paragraph 20 of the Scheme states:

‘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.’

6. As can be seen, the application was required to have been made to the Tribunal by the applicant promptly and not less than three months from the date of the incident. A claim that is submitted outside the three-month time limit can only be admitted to the Scheme if the Tribunal considers that the circumstances which resulted in the late submission of the application justify exceptional treatment.

7. In this instance, the application form ought to have been lodged with the Tribunal no later than by [ ]. In the event, the application form was received by the Tribunal on [ ]. As such, it was lodged approximately 6 months’ late.

8. At Section 2(f) of the application form, dealing with reasons for the late submission of the application for compensation, the applicant stated as follows: ‘I had to undergo 3 surgeries since the attack: the first one two (sic) stabilize my jaw, followed by lengthy procedure to put my fractured jaw back together. Recently, I had to undergo another surgery to remove the metal plate from my jaw. Both the attack and the surgeries have affected me greatly, physically as well as mentally. I have not been able to deal with the bureaucratic aftermath until now. The incident is still a mental burden to me… If necessary, I will provide a medical certificate that I have been unable to file the application within the 3 month time-frame.’

9. No such medical certificate or report was contained on the file.

10. Having carefully considered the matter, the Tribunal could identify no circumstances justifying exceptional treatment which would permit the exercise of its discretion in favour of admitting the application under the Scheme.

11. The Tribunal therefore refused to admit the application under paragraph 20 of the Scheme.

12. Should the applicant wish to appeal this decision, it may be of assistance to an Appeal Panel for the applicant to obtain the medical evidence referred to by him at section 2(f) of the application form.

13. The Tribunal has noted the correspondence on file concerning the reporting of the incident. The Tribunal, at first instance, has not reached a concluded view on the matter – having refused to admit the application under paragraph 20 of the Scheme. However, the Tribunal thought it would be of assistance in any appeal to draw the applicant’s attention to paragraph 22 of the Scheme which provides as follows: ‘To qualify for compensation it will be necessary to indicate to the Tribunal that the offence giving rise to injury has been the subject of criminal proceedings or that it was reported without delay to the Gardaí … However, the Tribunal will have discretion to dispense with this requirement where they are satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made by or on behalf of the claimant to notify the Garda Síochána … of the offence and to cooperate with them.'

14. NA.

15. NA.

16. NA.

17. Nil.

Conor Heaney

Chairperson, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

6 October 2023