Publication
50416 (2 March 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: 50416
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: Application refused under Paragraph 1 of the Scheme. In the alternative, application refused under Paragraph 12 and/or Paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
1. [ ] (‘the Applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’). The Applicant submitted a completed application form in respect of his claim which was received by the Tribunal on [ ].
2. The details of the Applicant’s claim are somewhat unusual. The Applicant was staying at the [ ] Hotel on the night of [ ] and was due to [ ] the following day. The Applicant states that he had returned to his hotel room by approximately 11pm and was in bed by midnight. The Applicant states that he was awoken at approximately 2am by the light in his room being turned on and found two strangers [ ] in his bedroom. [ ] stated that she had brought the Applicant the paracetamol that he had asked for (the Applicant state he had not asked for anything) and the Applicant saw [ ] standing at the dressing table at the end of the Applicant’s bed. Upon being challenged the man claimed to be a member of the hotel’s staff. The Applicant shouted at the intruders to leave the room which they did.
3. The Applicant states that he subsequently suffered ‘a very severe and lengthy [ ] attack’. The Applicant called reception to report the intruders and later a doctor arrived to examine the Applicant. The Applicant states that as he was looking in his wallet to find his medical history notes he noticed that ‘all the paper money in my wallet was gone.’ The Applicant states that he was very distressed by the incident.
4. The Applicant states that he later discovered that his hotel room door had not closed after he entered his room. The Applicant states that he was told by hotel staff that the Gardaí had been notified about the incident however correspondence from [ ] of [ ] Garda Station dated [ ] to the Tribunal states that there is no record of this incident being reported to Gardaí,
5. The Applicant has not provided any details or vouching documentation at all in respect of expenses or outlay incurred as a result of this incident. The Applicant has no quantified the sum of money allegedly taken from his wallet during the incident.
6. The Tribunal wrote to the Applicant on [ ] acknowledging receipt of the Applicant’s application and seeking further information in respect of the Applicant’s claim, specifically whether the Applicant is claiming for out-of-pocket expenses. No response was received to this correspondence.
7. The Tribunal wrote to the Applicant on [ ] enquiring whether the Applicant wished to proceed with his application for compensation and repeating its request for information sent in its letter of [ ]. No response was received to this correspondence and the application was sent for decision.
8. The Scheme was set up to provide compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted upon applicants. These injuries and/or out of pocket expenses must arise from a crime of violence. Accordingly the is an onus on any applicant to provide prima facie evidence that they have been the victims of a crime of violence. The Applicant’s case, taken at its height, contains no allegation that the Applicant was the victim of a crime of violence, notwithstanding that it was undoubtably a very unpleasant experience for the Applicant. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the Applicant has failed at the first evidentiary hurdle and that his application for compensation under the Scheme must therefore fail.
9. In the alternative, Paragraph 12 of the Scheme provides:
‘No compensation will be payable to an applicant who has not, in the opinion of the Tribunal, given the Tribunal all reasonable assistance...’
10. The application form, signed by the Applicant, confirmed his acceptance, under Part 10, that he would provide all reasonable assistance to the Tribunal. In the Tribunal’s view, such an acceptance would clearly include an acceptance by the Applicant of any reasonable time limits which the Tribunal requested for the provision of information in relation to the claim.
11. The Applicant has failed to respond to repeated requests for information from the Tribunal to enable the progression of his claim for compensation.
12. The Tribunal is satisfied, on the basis of the above, that the Applicant has failed to comply with the duty imposed upon him pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Scheme and that, as a result, no compensation should be paid in respect of this application.
13. Finally, Paragraph 21 of the Scheme provides that:
‘Applications should be made as soon as possible but, expect in circumstances determined by the Tribunal to justify exceptional treatment, not later than three months after the event giving rise to the injury…’
14. In the instant case the Applicant’s application was not received until [ ], some six and an half months post incident. No explanation for the late application has been proffered by the Applicant and therefore the Tribunal must reject the application.
15. N/A.
16. N/A.
17. N/A.
18. Nil.
Marc Murphy
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
2 March 2023