The High Court has refused two judicial review applications challenging aspects of Ireland’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, finding that the claims were premature and fundamentally misconceived. It did not decide either applicant’s entitlement to compensation.
In a judgment delivered on 30 April 2019, Ms Justice Murphy said there was no constitutional or free-standing European Union right to compensation for injuries caused by crime. While victims have a right to access a compensation scheme, the court said the terms of such a scheme are a matter of government policy.
The applicants, Paul Doyle and Gary Kelly, had sought compensation through the Criminal Injuries Tribunal. Both had significant criminal records. Paragraph 14 of the scheme allows the Tribunal to refuse compensation if a victim’s conduct, character or way of life makes an award inappropriate, or to reduce an award on those grounds.
Doyle’s application arose from injuries he suffered at his home in April 2014 during an altercation with his girlfriend’s brother. A Garda report said he received three blows to the head, suspected to have been caused by an axe, and suffered a serious brain injury. His solicitor asked the Tribunal for guidance on how it applied paragraph 14 and copies of relevant past decisions. The Tribunal said members were guided by the scheme’s text and that it did not keep records in a form that allowed those decisions to be readily identified.
Kelly applied for compensation after an assault at his Dublin flat in late March or early April 2016. His solicitor challenged, among other things, the exclusion of legal costs and pain-and-suffering damages and sought a preliminary ruling on whether paragraph 14 would apply. The judgment records that the Tribunal had not indicated paragraph 14 was in play when Kelly sought judicial review; his previous convictions emerged during the proceedings.
The applicants also argued for access to earlier Tribunal decisions and relied on European law. The respondents objected that the claims were premature because the Tribunal had not yet decided either compensation application. The court agreed, following an earlier High Court decision on similar issues. It also rejected the applicants’ argument that the judicial review cases should be converted into plenary proceedings, saying it had reached its own conclusion that the applications were misconceived.
The judge said any Tribunal decision to refuse or reduce compensation must comply with fair procedures, give reasons and remain open to judicial review. She noted that the scheme requires annual reports on its operation and gives the Tribunal discretion to publish individual decisions that could assist applicants. The court did not rule on whether the applicants had standing to rely on Directive 2004/80/EC. It refused all reliefs sought.