Publication
51099 (19 September 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: 51099
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The application is dismissed under Article 10 (now Article 9) and Article 21 (now Article 20).
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, was received on the [ ].
[ ] of [ ] submitted an application form to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal received on the [ ] in respect of an incident which occurred on the [ ].
On the night of the incident he was at home with his girlfriend when he went to investigate a group of people that were outside. He was savagely assaulted by [ ], who attacked him with a range of implements [ ]. He sustained severe [ ], to the top of his head as well as a laceration. He was taken to [ ] Hospital where he received twenty two stitches and twenty two staples and was detained over night. He was working in [ ], and was out of work since the date of the attack. At the time he was receiving approximately €500 to €600 net per week doing [ ], work according to the application form.
It is noted by the Tribunal that the Garda Report subsequently confirms that [ ], were convicted and received sentences of imprisonment arising from this attack.
It is noted that at the time of the incident the Applicant had only one previous conviction for unauthorized interference with a mechanically propelled vehicle and related criminal damage which was taken into consideration on the [ ]. He received a [ ], suspended sentence. He subsequently [ ] was convicted of [ ] offences and had fines imposed on him.
On the [ ] he was convicted of three [ ], offences and one [ ], offence.
The assault occurred in [ ]. Details from the Department of Social Welfare detail that the Applicant was in employment with four employers between [ ] and [ ]. He was on job seekers for a total of 11 weeks in [ ] and 48 weeks in [ ]. The Applicant Solicitors subsequently submitted details of P45s and P60s for January [ ] and January [ ].
The medical report submitted dated the [ ] detail that the nature of the various injuries suffered constituted actual bodily harm. The Applicant was admitted to hospital on the [ ] but discharged the following day and the sutures were removed on the [ ].
On the [ ] the Applicant’s Solicitors submitted a letter to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal in which they advised that their client was not aware until he consulted with them of any right to claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal.
The Applicants Solicitors were written to on the [ ] seeking documentary evidence in relation to the earnings of the Applicant.
The Applicants Solicitors were further written to on the [ ] in which clarification was sought on the location of the actual attack. More importantly it was noted that the two form P60s submitted in respect of [ ] and [ ] did not appear to support the position that the Applicant suffered loss of earnings.
The Applicant’s Solicitors replied on the [ ] stating “with regard to the issue of the P60s submitted with regard to [ ] this is clearly an error as our client is adamant and we are aware as a matter of fact that he was not working after the [ ] and our client has been effectively out of work to the present date”. They indicated that they were going to further investigate the matter.
They subsequently wrote on the [ ] indicating that their original instructions were erroneous in that he “did work on for a period of time but official termination of employment was the [ ]”.
The Applicant’s Solicitors were written to on the [ ] and details were sought of the net amount claimed as a result of the Applicant being unable to work supported by a Statement from the Department of Social Welfare confirming Social Welfare payments. The Applicant himself subsequently wrote to the Tribunal on the [ ] stating that he was now acting on his own behalf.
He was written to with details of the previous queries and a copy of the file was sent to him. No response was received to that. On the [ ] the Applicant was written to and asked “Please inform this office in writing if you still wish to pursue this matter. If so please forward the documentation required including original receipts and vouching documentation in relation to your out of pocket expenses arising from personal injuries”. He was also advised that if the office did not hear from him by the [ ] the file would be sent to a member for decision.
The Applicant wrote back stating that he still wished to pursue the matter.
No vouchers or supporting documentation were submitted.
3. Article 10 of the scheme which applied at the time that this incident occurred (now Article 9) states “no compensation will be payable unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the injury is such that compensation of not less than €63 should be awarded”. The Tribunal has no evidence in front of it to enable to determine that an award of compensation in excess of €63 should be made in this case. This is supported by the Applicant’s employment history post the incident which on the balance of probability confirms that he was in gainful employment post the incident in question.
4. Article 21 (now Article 20) provides “ application 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”. The applicant has submitted that his reasons for not submitting within the time limit in question (being well over two years after the incident) is based on the fact that he was unaware of his entitlement to claim compensation. The Tribunal does not accept that a lack of awareness of the scheme is a circumstance justifying exceptional treatment.
5. Accordingly the Application is dismissed under Article 10 (now Article 9) and Article 21 (now Article 20).
Martin G Lawlor
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
19 September 2022