Publication
51106 (4 January 2023)
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
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: 51106
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The application is refused under Article 21 (now Article 20) and Article 10 (now Article 9).
1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) of [ ] has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. His application for compensation under the Scheme was lodged on the [ ] in respect of an incident which occurred on the [ ].
3. The incident happened at [ ] when he was attacked by [ ]. The Applicant suffered [ ], ten stitches to his forehead and eight stitches to his chin following an assault with a broken glass. He received treatment at [ ] Hospital [ ] according to the application form and from Dr [ ].
According to the application form he received inpatient treatment in Hospital from the [ ] to the [ ].
Also, according to the application form [ ], he outlined that he sustained a loss of hearing to his right ear.
The Application was submitted by his Solicitors on the [ ] and received by the Tribunal on the [ ]. The Attacker was convicted at [ ] Circuit Court in [ ], and sentenced to [ ] years in custody.
The Applicant’s Solicitors stated “whilst the application is outside the three-month deadline the Applicant was under the impression that his assailant had to be the victim before he could bring any claim for compensation. In those circumstances we trust you will extend the statutory time.”
This version is contradicted by the Applicant himself who on the Application form states “I was not aware of any deadline for the submission of an application. I believed that the offender needed to be convicted of an offence before it could seek any compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board”.
The Tribunal is therefore prepared to pass over the submission made by the Applicant’s Solicitor and prefers the submission made by the Applicant himself, which was:
1. He was not aware of the three-month deadline.
2. He was under the impression that the offender needed to be convicted before he could seek compensation.
4. The Applicant’s Solicitors were written to on the [ ] with a copy of the Garda Report. The Garda Report disclosed that the Applicant had [ ] previous convictions under the Road Traffic Act and Public Order Act. The correspondence from the Tribunal Secretariat drew the Applicants Solicitors attention to Article 14 (now Article 13) which states “no compensation will be payable where the Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct of the victim his or her character or way of life make it in appropriate that he or she should not be granted an award and that the Tribunal may reduce the amount of an award where in its opinion it is appropriate to do so having regard to the conduct character or way of life of the victim.”
Various enquiries were also made of the Applicant in particular details of his special damages including loss of earnings.
The Applicant Solicitors wrote acknowledging this correspondence on the [ ] and promising to revert.
No further information was forthcoming from them.
On the [ ] a letter issued from the Secretariat to the Applicants Solicitors enquiring to know if the original documentation in respect of the out-of-pocket expenses was available and asking for same to be furnished. In addition, the Applicant’s Solicitors were informed “if this office does not hear from you by the [ ] this file will be sent to a member for decision”. No response has been received to that. It is noted that in the Application form the Applicant does not set out details of any out-of-pocket expenses at all.
5. Article 10 of the scheme (now Article 9) provides “no compensation will be payable unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the injury is such that compensation of not less than €63 should be awarded”. As no details have been furnished concerning out of pocket expenses it is impossible for the Tribunal to make an award in this case even if the Applicant were able to deal with the issue of the late submission of the application.
6. Article 20 of the scheme (previously Article 21) 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”. The Application form was submitted outside of the three months. The Applicants has submitted two reasons for the delay; namely that he was unaware of the time limit and that he was under erroneous belief that the Attacker had to be convicted before he could submit an application for compensation. The Tribunal does not accept that either of these two circumstances justify exceptional treatment.
7. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed under Article 21 (now Article 20) and Article 10 (now Article 9).
Martin G Lawlor
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
4 January 2023