Publication
50011 (2 July 2022)
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: 50011
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The application is refused.
1. Mr [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. The applicant advised the Tribunal that he was the victim of an assault by Mr [ ] outside [ ] Bar, [ ]. He alleges that the offender kicked the door of the van that he was travelling in and called on the applicant to come out of the van. He claimed that he tried to talk with Mr [ ], but Mr [ ] punched him in the face. He was knocked unconscious.
3. Garda, [ ] in his statement dated [ ] outlines that Mr [ ] has put forward a radically different version of events to the applicant. Mr [ ] alleges that he was assaulted by the applicant. Mr [ ] reported that the applicant got out of the van after it passed him and said, “come on you knacker”, the applicant struck him, and he struck the applicant back.
4. There were witness statements taken from associates of the applicant and Mr [ ]. These statements allegedly supported both versions of events. Garda [ ] stated that it was his intention to prosecute both the applicant and Mr [ ] for S2 assault.
5. The applicant received treatment in A&E in [ ] Hospital [ ]. He alleges that sustained a cut to his head, concussion, and problems with his neck. He also allegedly sustained psychiatric injuries as a result of the alleged assault. He was unable to work for a number of weeks.
6. The applicant has failed to put forward any medical report to verify his alleged injuries.
7. The applicant is making a claim in respect of the medical expenses, car damage and lost earnings sustained as a result of the alleged assault.
8. Paragraph 1 of the (pre-2021) Scheme states that the Tribunal can only provide in respect of personal injury where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence. Further, paragraph 30 of the (pre-April 2021) Scheme states that: “The standard of proof which the Tribunal will apply to a determination of any claim will be the balance of probabilities.” Therefore, it is incumbent of the applicant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the incident in question is directly attributable to a crime of violence.
9. It is also noted that the applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any medical report. Further, the applicant has not corresponded with the Tribunal since the date he lodged the application form in [ ], almost [ ] years ago. He has failed to fully vouch all the heads of claim put forward as requested by the Tribunal. Paragraph 11 of the (pre-April 2021) Scheme states that “No compensation will be payable to an applicant who has not, in the opinion of the Tribunal, given the Tribunal all reasonable assistance, in relation to any medical report that it may require, and otherwise”. Therefore, the applicant has a duty to promptly progress his claim and cooperate with the Tribunal so that it can evaluate and conclude the claim.
10. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant sustained injuries as a consequence of being involved in an altercation by Mr [ ], the Tribunal finds that the applicant has failed, on the balance of probabilities, to prove that he was the blameless victim of a crime of violence. In fact, it appears that, both himself and Mr [ ] were both going to be prosecuted for assault. In circumstances where the applicant has not proven that his claim falls to be determined under the terms and conditions of the Scheme, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to make any further determinations on the other provisions of the Scheme that might apply to this matter. However, even if the claim had been found to fall within the ambit of the Scheme, it would have been dismissed because, in contravention of paragraph 11, the applicant has failed to provide the Tribunal with all reasonable assistance. In this regard, it is noted that the applicant failed to provide a medical report to the Tribunal to prove the injuries that he sustained as a consequence of the incident. Further the applicant has failed to assist the Tribunal with queries. He has failed to progress his claim and contact the Tribunal for almost [ ] years.
David Culleton
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
2 July 2022