Publication
50968 (24 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: 50968
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The application is refused under paragraphs 21 and 23 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, received by the Tribunal on [ ], the applicant stated that he had suffered injuries on [ ] while attending [ ]. The claim is that the applicant sustained injuries including the loss of a front tooth and bruising as a result of an assault.
3. A garda report on file indicates that the both the applicant and his assailant were charged with assault on each other arising out of the incident, but that each withdrew their complaint against each other on the hearing date: both cases were struck out.
4. Several preliminary matters arise which require consideration, as they may determine whether this application falls within the scope of the Scheme. These matters are whether the application can be considered outside the 3-month timeframe established by the Scheme; whether the applicant; whether the applicant reported/assisted the gardai in the prosecution of the offence; and whether the applicant was in some way responsible for his injuries.
5. In respect of the timeframe, this is governed by paragraph 20 of the Scheme (formerly paragraph 21). This reads:
“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”.
6. In this case the incident occurred on [ ]. In the normal course an application should have been made on or before [ ]. The application was instead submitted some 18 months after that date, on [ ]. The Tribunal must therefore consider whether there are circumstances which justify the exceptional treatment of admitting the application outside the normal timeframe.
7. In his application form the applicant states that his application was late because he did not know about the Scheme. He said that he was first alerted to the Scheme until his mother heard about it on RTE’s Liveline programme on [ ].
8. The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s lack of knowledge to be a circumstance which justifies exceptional treatment of admitting the claim out of time. The timeframe which applicants and the Tribunal operates under is quite short. The Tribunal is of the view that there is some responsibility on applicants to seek out their rights if they wish to rely on them. It is clear that the applicant’s mother found out about the Scheme through the media. The Tribunal is generally aware that information in respect of the Scheme is available in Garda stations. Therefore there were opportunities for the applicant to learn about the Scheme, its existence being adequately publicised. While some leeway might be given to an applicant who made some efforts to find out what (if any) rights he had, a year-and-a-half of latitude does not seem reasonable. In this regard the Tribunal notes that when the applicant learned of the Scheme a further month elapsed. Having found himself outside of the requisite timeframe a much faster turnaround at that point would have been expected.
9. While the Tribunal is of the view that the application falls outside of its scope on the basis of the timeframes involved for completeness it will set out the position in respect of the other preliminary hurdles outlines above. Paragraph 23 of the Scheme in being at the time of the incident (and para 22 of the current Scheme) requires that the matter be reported to the gardai without delay, or that it was subject of criminal proceedings. It is clear in this case that criminal proceedings were not concluded because the applicant withdrew his complaint. This, in the Tribunal’s view, means that the initial report of the complaint also became a dead letter: the requirements of Paragraph 23 of the Scheme were not met.
10. Further, under paragraph 13 of the Scheme in place at the time of the incident (para 12 in the current Scheme), no compensation is payable where the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant was responsible for his injuries, and compensation may be reduced if it is of the opinion that he was partially responsible. At this juncture the Tribunal does not have to assess whether any compensation would have been entirely set to nought or partially reduced, as the claim is otherwise found outside the Scheme. It suffices to say that had the other preliminary thresholds been surmounted this provision would have had effect.
11. From the foregoing, I am satisfied that the applicant has not established his entitlement to bring a claim under the Scheme. No award is therefore made.
Tricia Sheehy Skeffington
Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
24 June 2022