The High Court has quashed a Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal decision rejecting Nicola Earls’ claim over serious injuries caused by a firework, and sent the matter back for a fresh determination by a differently constituted panel.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled that the Tribunal had made material errors of law in deciding whether the incident involved crimes of violence under sections 79 and 80 of the Explosives Act 1875. He directed the Tribunal to arrange the rehearing as a priority, given the time since the incident.
The claim concerns a “screamer” firework that exploded in Ms Earls’ face on Halloween night in 1995, when she was 13. The judgment says she lost 90% of the vision in her right eye and 10% in her left. The firework had been lit and set off down a public road in Salthill, County Galway, by a boy identified in the judgment as E.M., who was then 11.
The Tribunal rejected the claim at first instance in 2015. On appeal, it decided in May 2021 that no crime of violence had taken place, finding on the balance of probabilities that E.M. thought the street was empty and had not seen anyone there.
Mr Justice Ferriter held that the Tribunal wrongly treated the “reasonably calculated” element of the section 79 offence as subjective. He said it required an objective assessment and that the decision did not show proper consideration of witness statements describing the applicant and her friend as visible down the road. The court did not decide whether either offence was ultimately proved or whether the conduct amounted to a crime of violence; those questions are for the Tribunal on reconsideration.
The judge also found that the Tribunal erred by treating a section 80 breach as not a crime of violence without assessing the particular circumstances of setting off a screamer down a public road on Halloween. Whether the conduct constituted a crime of violence remains a factual question for the Tribunal.
The court did not decide the applicant’s separate challenge based on alleged irrationality, saying it was unnecessary once the decision was being quashed. It also declined to grant a declaration over the Tribunal’s delay. The judge described the more than six-year gap between the appeal being lodged and its hearing as unacceptable, but noted that Ms Earls had herself waited more than 16 years before substantially progressing her claim. He said the decision to quash made a declaration unnecessary in this case.