Publication
50672 (26 July 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
Decision of a Single Member
Name of applicant: [ ]
Application number: 50672
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: Undated - received by the Tribunal on [ ]**
Decision outcome: Application refused under paragraph 21 of the 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, the applicant stated that he had suffered injuries at [ ] Public House, [ ], as a result of being the victim of an assault. The applicant stated that he was involved in a ‘skirmish’ with another male, [ ], in the course of which he was struck over the head with a pool cue. The applicant had no further memory of the incident until he woke up in his bed feeling unwell. The applicant stated that he received both in-patient and out-patient treatment at [ ] General Hospital for his injuries. Those injuries which the applicant stated he had sustained as a result of the assault included a fractured skull and memory loss.
3. The applicant made a claim for loss of earnings as a result of being off work as a result of the assault. The loss of earnings was said to be €300 per week from the date of the incident on a continuing basis. There was no corroborating evidence to support the loss of earnings claim.
4. The file did not contain a report from An Garda Síochána, however, there was a statement from a member of An Garda Síochána, dated [ ], who had knowledge of the matter. The Garda confirmed the applicant’s account. He further stated that [ ] had been convicted of an assault on the applicant on [ ] at [ ] Circuit Court and ordered to pay the applicant €[ ] in compensation. As [ ] had only paid €[ ] in compensation, the Garda stated that the matter had been re-entered before the Court in the [ ] sitting. There was no further information on file concerning the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against [ ].
5. The Tribunal entered into correspondence with the applicant’s solicitors following receipt of the application for compensation. On [ ], the Tribunal, asked the applicant to confirm in writing if he wished to continue to pursue his application to the Tribunal and provide all necessary vouching documentation in support of his claim. If no response to the letter was forthcoming by [ ], the applicant was advised that the file would be passed to a Member for a decision.
6. There had been no response to that correspondence from the applicant.
7. Paragraph 21 of the Scheme provides as follows:
‘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…’
8. 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.
9. In this instance, the injuries said by the applicant to have been directly attributable to a crime of violence were allegedly perpetrated upon him on [ ]. Thus, the applicant would have been required to have lodged the application for compensation on or before [ ]. The application form was not in fact lodged with the Tribunal until [ ]. As such, it was lodged approximately 16 months’ late.
10. Having carefully considered the matter, 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.
11. The Tribunal refused to admit the application under paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
12. For the avoidance of doubt, even if the application had been admitted for consideration under the Scheme, on the material presented, the Tribunal would have declined to make any award under paragraph 11.
13. In material part, paragraph 11 of the Scheme provides, ‘No compensation will be payable to an applicant who has not, in the opinion of the Tribunal, given the Tribunal all reasonable assistance...’
14. Having reviewed the correspondence, the Tribunal was satisfied, that the applicant had failed to comply with the duty imposed upon him pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Scheme.
15. NA.
16. NA.
18. NA.
19. Nil. Application refused under paragraph 21 of the scheme.
Conor Heaney
Chairperson, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
26 July 2023