Publication
51283 (9 May 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: 51283
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ] (received by the Tribunal [ ] )
Decision outcome: The application refused under paragraph 21.
1. Mr [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In his application form the applicant stated that he had suffered injuries as a result of being assaulted at [ ] on [ ]. The applicant stated that he sustained a fractured [ ] as a result of the assault. He was admitted to hospital as an in-patient between [ ] and [ ]. Subsequently, he received hospital out-patient treatment and consulted his GP.
3. The Tribunal received a report from the Gardaí, dated [ ], in respect of the circumstances which gave rise to the incident. It was stated that on [ ], Gardaí were called to the report of an alleged assault which had taken place at [ ]. It was alleged that the applicant had been assaulted outside the [ ] Centre, where [ ] was taking place. Attending Gardaí noted the applicant had sustained a mark to his [ ] and it looked as though his left eye had been hit.
4. It was reported to Gardaí that there had been an altercation between the applicant and [ ] after the applicant had [ ]. The applicant and [ ] started pushing one another and were separated but then returned to fighting. It was during this fight that it was alleged that the applicant was hit by an object on his head and that he fell to the ground where he was hit a further five or six times. [ ] was identified, arrested and prosecuted for assault causing harm contrary to Section 3(1) of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
5. On [ ], at [ ] Court, the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of [ ], with the final [ ] and [ ] of the sentence being conditioned as follows: that the accused enter bond in the sum of [ ] to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of [ ] years after his release from prison. The report also confirmed that that the sum of € [ ] was paid to the applicant by way of compensation.
6. A medical report from the applicant’s solicitors confirmed but the applicant sustained a linear fracture of the [ ] bone of his [ ] extending to the left [ ]. The applicant had an excellent prognosis, and it was considered that he would not suffer any long-term neurological sequelae. The applicant was left with [ ] which was felt to be unlikely to improve [ ] and that the applicant would likely be left with [ ] as a result of the incident.
7. The Tribunal requested documentation from the applicant’s solicitors in support of the application which was not forthcoming. By way of letter dated the [ ], the applicant’s solicitors were written to by the Tribunal and advised that unless the outstanding information was provided on or before [ ], the file would be forwarded to a Member for a decision at first instance.
8. There was no response either from the applicant or his solicitor in relation to this correspondence.
9. The applicant’s application for compensation was received by the Tribunal on [ ].
10. Paragraph 21 of the Scheme 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.’
11. As can be seen, the application was required to have been made to the Tribunal by the applicant promptly and not less than three months from the date of the incident. A claim that is submitted outside the three-month time limit can only be admitted to the Scheme if the Tribunal considers that the circumstances which resulted in the late submission of the application justify exceptional treatment.
12. In this instance, the application form ought to have been lodged with the Tribunal no later than by [ ]. In the event, the application form was received by the Tribunal on [ ]. As such, it was lodged just over ten under months’ late.
13. Section 2(f) of the application form addresses applications that are submitted after three months from the date of the incident. In his form, the applicant, at section 2(f), stated as follows:
‘The applicant was unable to instruct anybody to make an application on his behalf due to his hospitalisation and the severity of his injuries.’
14. The medical report, furnished on the applicant's behalf by his solicitors, confirmed that the applicant was admitted to hospital on [ ], having been assaulted with a [ ] to the [ ]. The report confirms that the applicant recovered well and was discharged from hospital on [ ]. On [ ], at a review, the applicant was noted not to have any major complaints. He did have some sensitivity of the forehead particularly in cold weather, but no history of headaches or other symptoms was noted. The applicant was discharged on that date.
15. No evidence, contained in the medical report on file, or from any other source, has been provided by the applicant to support the assertion made in his application form that he was unable to lodge his application form within the three-month time limit prescribed by the Scheme, owing to his hospitalisation and the severity of his injuries.
16. Having carefully considered the applicant’s reasons for not submitting his application form in a timely fashion in accordance with paragraph 21, and the absence of evidence to support his assertion, the Tribunal could identify no circumstances justifying exceptional treatment which would permit the exercise of its discretion in favour of admitting the application under the Scheme.
17. The Tribunal therefore refused to admit the application under paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
18. NA
19. NA
16. NA
17. Nil.
Conor Heaney
Chairperson, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
9 May 2022