Two Dublin men who were the victims of violent crimes have won their High Court challenges against their exclusion from a State scheme that compensates victims of violent crime.
In his judgment Mr Justice David Holland said that a provision should have been made when the terms of the scheme were altered that would have allowed applications to be made on the two men's behalf for compensation to be considered by the body that considers such applications for compensation.
Mr Justice Holland made his findings in judicial review actions taken by Philip Bowes, who was seriously injured when he was attacked and stabbed in the flats complex where he lives in Dublin on December 27th, 2018, last and Jason Dunphy who on April 26th 2019 was viciously, assaulted in Temple Bar in Dublin.
Both men were severely injured as a result of the attacks, which were both committed by individuals that were previously unknown to them.
The cases were both test actions. A dozen other similar actions brought on behalf of others whose applications were also turned down by the Tribunal on similar grounds remain pending before the court.
In their actions against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, they had sought orders from the High Court quashing the refusal to consider his application to be included in the scheme.
The actions were opposed.
The two men, represented in their separate actions by Michael Conlan SC, Paul O'Shea Bl, Ian Whelan Bl instructed by Brian Burns BKC solicitors, had applied for compensation under the 'Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted.'
However, their applications were refused by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, the body which administers the scheme, because it was made outside the allowed time limit.
In their High Court judicial review proceedings, the two men claimed that decisions were unlawful and in breach of fair procedures and fair and natural justice.
They had argued that in April 2021 the Tribunal unilaterally changed the terms of the scheme.
The scheme had been operated in a manner that allowed victims make an application within a period of three months from the date of their injury, it was claimed.
Time period
That time period could be extended if the Tribunal believed that any application outside the three-month period was exceptional.
Exceptional circumstances exist in both men's cases, the court was told
There was no upper limit on the tribunal's discretion to extend time in any individual case, it was claimed.
However, in April 2021 the terms of the scheme were changed with the introduction of an absolute limit of two years from the time of the injury for the making of an application.
It was claimed that what the Tribunal had done effectively amounted to a retrospective unlawful interference with their rights to be compensated for their injuries.
Mr Justice Holland said that there had been a breach of the legal principle of effectiveness due to a failure to make a transitional provision in the 2021 scheme that allowed for a period for potential applicants like the two men, to seek to avail of an extension of time due to exceptional circumstances to apply for compensation.
The judge added that as the two men had succeeded in their actions they were entitled to their legal costs.
