Publication
53741 (27 February 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 HEARING
APPLICANT: [ ] 53741
Held by way of Virtual Hearing on 27 February 2023
Present:
Tribunal Members
Martin G. Lawlor, Solicitor (Chair of division and CICT member)
Ms Majella Twomey BL Barrister
Mr Conor Heaney Solicitor
Anne Marie Treacy, Secretary
For the appellant
[ ] SC
[ ] Solicitor
[ ]
[ ]
This matter came before the Tribunal panel by way of appeal from the single member decision dated the [ ].
1. The Appellant was represented by [ ] SC and also by [ ] Solicitor.
2. The Chair introduced the Members of the Tribunal and outlined that this was an appeal being heard remotely pursuant to instruction number 2 on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal website. It was explained to the Appellant that this hearing was a de novo hearing and that the Tribunal could affirm the original decision or substitute it by making its own decision and potentially also make an award.
3. The Appellant was informed that while the hearing was held in private, the decision, suitably redacted, might be published on the Tribunals website. The Appellant was informed that no recording was to be made of the hearing and Ms Treacy would take the only note of the proceedings.
4. The Chair outlined that the Tribunal had a booklet of Tribunal documents, with page numbers 1 to 98, the submissions from Mr [ ] on behalf of the Appellant, the supplementary documents relating to same, and also the correspondence which was submitted.
5. The Appellant was advised that the Tribunal hearings were informal and that there was no necessity to take evidence on Oath.
6. Mr [ ] outlined that he proposed to deal with four separate issues, being the incident in question, the injuries suffered, the net losses and finally the interaction between the Tribunal and the Appellant and his cooperation with same.
7. The Appellant gave evidence that on Saturday the [ ] he was in a public house with his brother. Present also in the public house was [ ], who is his son’s Uncle. Relations between the Appellant and Mr [ ] sister (the mother of the Appellant's child) had been poor, particularly when he was unable to pay maintenance during the lean years of the recession. [ ] He said that a couple of years prior to this incident that the father of his child’s mother had attacked him and he said that all of her brothers were threatening him. He said a couple of weeks before this incident [ ] came up to him and tapped him on the back. On the night of this attack, [ ] was in the public house looking at the Appellant. The Appellant consumed [ ]. The Appellant left the pub and he remembered getting a wallop. After that he just remembers going back to the house. [ ]. The Appellant fairly conceded that he couldn’t say that he could see the person.
8. The Appellant said that on the [ ] he went into [ ] Hospital. He had two wires inserted. He said that the incident was reported to the Gardaí. They saw CCTV footage of the public house but none of the actual attack. The CCTV footage of the public house shows the Appellant leaving the Pub followed shortly, approximately 10 seconds later, by [ ] with [ ] returning about a minute and a half later rubbing his hands. He said that as a result of the injuries he received he had to have wires inserted in his left arm which was badly broken. He also suffered headaches, blurring and tinnitus. He outlined that he had worked in the [ ] industry since he was [ ] years of age. He attended Mr [ ] and also attended Professor [ ] on Mr [ ] recommendation as he continued to have ongoing problems with his arm. An operation was performed on the Appellant’s arm on the [ ], which he actually described as being more painful than the original break.
9. The Appellant detailed that his employment history was that he did [ ] work and also some [ ] work. In [ ] he started [ ]. He gave a detailed history of working in this particular industry. He worked for a number of Companies all throughout his work history up until the time of this attack. He said due to the nature of the work involved in [ ] he needed both hands. He would not be able to perform the work safely and adequately with just one arm and he knew himself that it would be impossible for him to return to this type of work. He conceded that the work was on and off and it depended on one job finishing and another job starting relatively shortly afterwards.
10. Prior to this attack the Appellant had worked in [ ] for a short period of time but one of his former employers had prevailed upon him to come work for him and he was scheduled to start as [ ] with that Employer on Monday the [ ], two days after the attack. That employer was a [ ] based Company who sent in a letter confirming the offer of employment and that the Appellant would have earned approximately €700 gross per week.
11. The Appellant in direct evidence conceded that his work was on and off and the Tribunal drew to his attention that according to the records supplied he worked for various employers during the course of any given year. He very fairly conceded that this was the position.
12. Ms [ ], the Appellant’s partner, gave evidence that on the night of the attack when the Appellant arrived home they did telephone on Garda Siochana and outlined that the attack had taken place.
13. The Tribunal had the benefit of the reports from Mr [ ] dated the [ ], [ ] and [ ] and the report of Professor [ ]. The reports detail that the Appellant sustained a fracture of his left wrist (he is right hand dominant) which was treated with k-wiring.
14. He subsequently complained of a constant severe sting on the ulnar aspect of his left wrist. He had a cortisone injection performed which did not give ongoing relief. He reported pain with increased levels of activity. He continued to suffer from these symptoms up until [ ].
15. He subsequently underwent an operation to allow an ulnar shortening. The report of Professor [ ] dated the [ ] stated that reconstruction surgery took place in respect of the deformity to his left wrist and that surgery took place on the [ ]. The early signs were that he was making an excellent recovery and that his function and movement are improved.
16. His evidence was that due to the nature of the work involving [ ] he needed both hands. He would not be able to perform the work safely and adequately with just one arm and that he knew himself that it would be impossible for him to return to this type of work.
17. Having reviewed all the evidence the Tribunal are satisfied that the Appellant was the victim of a crime of violence and therefore comes within the ambit of the scheme of compensation for criminal injuries.
18. The injuries are as described in the medical reports and as set out in this award. The Appellant commenced work as [ ] in [ ]. His total net loss of earnings calculations come to €52,932 as claimed. However, he does concede that his work was on and off and the Tribunal having examined his work record have concluded that in each year on average the Appellant would be out of work for a period of eight weeks. Accordingly the claim for loss of earnings is reduced by €8,143 resulting in an award in the round for loss of earnings of €45,000.
19. The Tribunal will also award the amounts claimed in respect of the medical report fees of: [ ] €500; [ ] €500; [ ] €200; Dr [ ] €544.50.
20. The total sum is €46,744.50 and is so awarded.
The total award is the sum of €46,744.50.