Publication
53378 (17 August 2022)
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of one member of the Tribunal pursuant to section 25 of the Scheme
Applicant: [ ]
Date of Injury: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Case reference: 53378
Decision: Pursuant to Paragraph 21 of the Scheme which was in place at the time of the applicant’s application to the Tribunal, the application is refused.
1. [ ] (“the applicant”) has made a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (“the Scheme”).
2. The application form was signed by the applicant on [ ]. The application form was stamped as received by the Tribunal on [ ].
3. In his application form, the applicant stated that he is was born in [ ] and was injured on [ ] at [ ].
4. The applicant stated that he had been injured by unknown assailants, aged approximately 14 and 13 years old, and received injuries to his face and his eye, necessitating significant surgery immediately following the attack which was undertaken at the [ ] and [ ] Hospital on [ ].
5. The applicant was in work at the time of the incident, and was employed by [ ] from [ ] until [ ], earning €404.60 per week (gross). However, following his injury on [ ], he was signed off work as sick and received illness benefit from [ ] until [ ], and thereafter received Disability Allowance, each amounting to €188 per week. The applicant also received a medical card following the attack.
6. In [ ], the applicant wrote to his employers stating that he had been informed by his medical advisers that he was able to undertake light duties, but was informed that the company was no-longer trading, and therefore no work was available for him. In [ ], the applicant received notification of redundancy and received a statutory redundancy entitlement of €4,911.84. There is no information on file regarding any employment found by the applicant following the injury. There is also no information on record relating to any employment-related sick pay received by the applicant during the period between receiving the injury in [ ] and the closure of the business in [ ].
7. With respect to travel, the applicant stated that he obtained the help of friends with travel to hospital for his treatments.
8. With respect to the delay in submitting his application to the Tribunal, the applicant stated that after the attack he was in shock, and that he had to undergo operations on his face.
9. The applicant further stated that in [ ], he received advice from [ ] & Co solicitors in [ ] regarding the making of his submission to the Tribunal, and was informed that he needed to have hospital reports and Gardai reports.
10. On [ ], the secretariat of the Tribunal wrote to the superintendent of [ ] Garda Station seeking a report on the incident which gave rise to the applicant’s injuries. On [ ], Superintendent [ ] replied to the Tribunal stating: “There is no record of this matter having been reported to An Garda Siochana.”
11. The applicant stated that he had spoken with Gardai at the hospital and gave them details of the attack, but there was a “lack of interest from the Gardai” surprised him and that he was left alone.
12. The applicant stated: “Gardai came to the [ ] Hospital and only asked how many offenders were and what age they could be. I have said to Gardai there were 2 offenders in approx. ages: 14& 13. The Gardai said they will contact me, but till today nobody contacted me in reaction to the above case.”
13. The applicant stated that, as he was not familiar with the Scheme, or the criminal process more generally, he was unaware of the process for making an application to the Tribunal, and had to make a number of visits to [ ] Garda Station to seek updates on his case, but that there had been no engagement with the applicant by Gardai.
14. Paragraph 21 of the scheme which was in place at the time of the application 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. In the case of an injury arising out of an event which took place before the commencement of the Scheme, the application must be made not later than three months from the date of the commencement (subject, also, to the foregoing exception)".
15. In his application, the applicant stated that he was injured on [ ], requiring him to make an application to the Tribunal before [ ]. However, the application form was not submitted to the Tribunal until [ ], significantly outside the required time for submission of the application.
16. Question 2(f) of the application form states: “If it is over three months from the date of incident to date of submission of application, please give reasons for delay as requires [sic] under Article 21 of the Scheme.” In correspondence with the Tribunal on the issue of delay, the applicant stated that he did not know about the Tribunal or the Scheme until he had been informed about it by a solicitor in [ ], who told him of the need of having medical reports and Garda reports to do so.
17. It is accepted that the applicant was the victim of a crime of violence in [ ], and that he underwent an operation on his eye immediately following the incident in question. It is also accepted that the applicant was out of work and in receipt of social welfare benefits as a result of his injuries and inability to work.
18. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant was not able to make an application within the required time period, or to instruct a solicitor to do so on his behalf immediately following the attack. It is clear that the applicant’s medical treatment was largely completed within that period, and that he had ongoing communication with [ ] Garda Station and the Department of Social Protection about his case, and social welfare benefits to which he was entitled during this period.
19. The applicant stated that he did not learn about the Tribunal until [ ]. However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to determine why the applicant was not able to make a submission to the Tribunal immediately on receiving information about the Tribunal in [ ].
20. It is not considered that ignorance of the Tribunal’s rules regarding the time period for the submission of an application to the Tribunal amounts to circumstances which warrant the granting of exceptional treatment.
21. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that there are any circumstances which warrant the granting of exceptional treatment in this case, and why the applicant’s claim should be admitted despite being outside of the required three-month time limit.
22. Therefore the application must be refused, pursuant to Paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
23. Pursuant to Paragraph 21 of the Scheme which was in place at the time of the applicant’s application to the Tribunal, the application is refused.
Peter Stafford BL
17 August 2022