Publication
51093 (15 June 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: 51093
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: Amount claimed below threshold for the Scheme set out in para 9 (old Scheme).
1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In his application for compensation under the Scheme, received by the Tribunal Secretariat on [ ], the applicant stated that he had sustained knife wound injuries to his neck and face when attackers broke into his home on [ ]. He says that the incident traumatised himself and his family, such that they moved to [ ].
3. Two preliminary matters require consideration in this application. First is the delay in making the application. Second is whether the sums claimed in the application bring it outside the scope of the Scheme.
4. In terms of the delay issue, paragraph 20 (formerly 21) of the Scheme provides that applications should be made within 3 months of the incident, albeit that they may be considered by the Tribunal if it finds circumstances which warrant exceptional treatment. In this case the applicant describes a trauma response in his application form; his solicitor refers to both a depression and not knowing about the Scheme as reasons for delay. While there is no medical report on file the Tribunal accepts that the trauma arising from the incident led to the applicant deciding to uproot his family and leave [ ]. Though the evidence on file is sparse, and limited to the application form only, it determines that the circumstances of this case do warrant exceptional treatment.
5. The second point to consider is the limited extent of the claim. The only heading for expenses claimed on the application form is a €60 hospital charge. The relevance of this is that under Paragraph 9 of the Scheme in operation at the time of the incident ‘no compensation will be payable unless the Tribunal is satisfied that injury is such that compensation of not less than £50 should be awarded’. IEP£50 is €63.49 thus below the threshold of compensation.
6. It is worth noting in this regard that para 6(e) of the Scheme precludes the Tribunal from making awards for ‘pain and suffering’. As such only actual losses, being vouched out-of-pocket expenses or loss of earnings can be awarded by the Tribunal. However no out-of-pocket expenses beyond the €60 hospital fee is claimed. It is further worth commenting that in the amended Scheme operative from April 2021 the lower threshold for any claim was lifted to €500.
7. It appears that in [ ] the correspondence between the Tribunal Secretariat and the applicant’s solicitor solely related to the acquisition of a Garda Report by the Secretariat, which regrettably appears not to have been obtained.
8. After a long gap in correspondence, on [ ] the Tribunal Secretariat wrote to the applicant’s solicitor asking whether he wished to pursue his claim. This letter sought documentation including receipts for out-of-pocket expenses. It sought response on or before [ ], after which the file would be sent for decision. It appears that no response to that letter was received by the Tribunal Secretariat.
9. The position therefore appears to be that the extent of the applicant’s claim falls below the threshold for applications of compensation under para 9 of the Scheme. Further there is no vouched or evidenced expenditure arising from the injury at all in this case. As such no compensation can be awarded.
Tricia Sheehy Skeffington
Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
15 June 2022