Publication
53388 (15 June 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
Appeal
Application number: 53388
Applicant/appellant: [ ] and [ ] in respect of [ ] deceased
Present:
For the Tribunal:
For the applicant/appellant:
[ ] and [ ] (applicants)
1. [ ] and [ ] (“the Applicants”) have made a claim for compensation under the Scheme for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted in respect of an incident which occurred on [ ] during which their son [ ] was killed. At the time of his death, [ ] was [ ] years old.
2. A first instance decision, made by a single Member, issued from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on [ ]. The Applicant appealed that decision and pursuant to paragraph 25 of the Scheme, a three Member panel of the Tribunal was constituted to consider his application on a de novo (afresh) basis. The Appeal hearing took place on [ ] and was held remotely by video conferencing platform, with the agreement of the Applicants. The Tribunal had the benefit of the Applicant’s Appeal file consisting of 51 pages including vouching documentation and a Schedule of Losses. The Tribunal also received the direct oral evidence of the Applicants.
3. [ ] died because of stab wounds [ ] (inflicted by [ ] who was subsequently convicted [ ]. The application was received by the Tribunal on [ ] [ ] stated that he had dislocated discs in [ ] and was in pain for months. He was waiting on surgery at the time. Though it may have been indicated by the Garda liason officer that the application could be made to the CICT, it did not register at the time due to the traumatic nature of the death of the Applicant’s son and the physical pain that [ ].
4. At the time of his death, the deceased had [ ] convictions. Most of these were road traffic act convictions, but he had one conviction under [ ] and one under [ ].
5. The parents of the deceased set out the devastating effect of the killing of their son. [ ]. The death of their son at such a young age left an indelible mark on the whole family, and in particular on [ ]. The Deceased also left behind [ ] who will be always deprived of their father’s presence and support.
6. The Tribunal accepts that the son of the Applicants was the victim of a crime of violence arising out of the incident which occurred on [ ] and that he suffered personal injuries and died as a direct result of that crime of violence (satisfying paragraph 1 and 3 of the Scheme). The Tribunal also accepts that the assault was reported to the Gardaí without delay (satisfying paragraph 23 of the Scheme).
7. The submission of the application three months after the incident in question is an issue in this case. Paragraph 20 of the Scheme (formerly para 21) 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”. (emphasis added)
8. In this case the incident occurred on the [ ]. In the normal course of events the application should have been made on or before [ ]. It was submitted more than one month after that date on [ ].
9. 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].
10. The Tribunal entirely accepts the applicant's contention that in this case they did not register that the Scheme was in existence until some time after the death of their son. This was either because they were not told about it earlier, or that if they was told about the Scheme it was during a period of trauma in which not all information was processed in a manner in which it could readily be recalled. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the physical illness that [ ] was suffering at this time impacted on his ability to avail of the Scheme earlier. The Tribunal is also conscious that the application is not very significantly out of time on its face. As such, the circumstances justify the exceptional treatment of admitting this application for further consideration under the Scheme.
11. The Applicants state that they spent €10,900 on the deceased’s funeral and submitted two invoices to support this. In addition, his headstone cost €9,385. However, they received a grant of €2,500 from the local Community Welfare Officer.
12. The Applicants presented evidence that the deceased’s partner at the time of his death [ ] did not wish to be considered in this application, and neither did [ ].
13. The Tribunal notes that the deceased was not employed at the time of his death and therefore the Tribunal does not find that there was any loss of earnings applicable in this case.
14. The Tribunal awards the amount of €17,785 to the Applicants in relation to the expenditure vouched.
15. In addition, the Tribunal awards the following monies from the solatium, which is limited at €35,000 since 2014:
To, [ ]: €10,000
To [ ]: €10,000
To [ ]: €5,000
To [ ]: €4,000
To [ ]: €4,000
To [ ]: €1,000
To [ ]: €1,000
Total award: €35,000 together with €17,785 in out-of-pocket expenses.
The Tribunal wishes the Applicants and their family well into the future.
Dated 15 June 2023
Roderick Maguire BL, for and on behalf of the sitting members of the Tribunal.