The High Court declared that delays in progressing a woman’s criminal injury compensation claim breached the respondents’ duty to determine it in a way that vindicated her right to constitutional justice. The court declined to award damages and did not decide how the compensation scheme should assess her injuries.
The judicial review followed a serious assault on or about 5 May 2002. The judgment says a stranger entered the residence where the applicant was staying and hit her over the head with an iron bar. He was convicted of assault and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment at Cavan Circuit Court in November 2004.
The applicant sought compensation for out-of-pocket expenses, including loss of earnings. The scheme did not provide compensation for pain and suffering or future pain and suffering. The Tribunal made an interim award in December 2009, including €73,764 for loss of earnings, €2,080.29 for expenses and €6,950 for further studies. It made a final decision on 5 February 2015, awarding a further €80,000 and bringing the total to €162,794.29.
The applicant had sought orders and declarations concerning delay, the scheme’s operation and scope, and alleged breaches of constitutional and European Convention rights, as well as damages. The respondents argued that the proceedings were moot because a final decision had been made. The court held that the request for mandamus to compel a final decision was moot, but that other requested relief remained live. The applicant had appealed the final award, with the appeal listed for 6 February 2017.
The court said it could not establish whether there had been culpable delay before solicitors began acting for the applicant in November 2010, noting gaps in the correspondence. It was concerned that seven years had passed before the interim award. It identified delay for which the Tribunal was responsible from July 2013 until the final decision in February 2015, and said that period was not contributed to by the applicant. The final decision came close to 13 years after the assault.
The court agreed that an entitlement to a reasonably prompt decision forms part of constitutional justice. It granted the declaration sought concerning delay. It rejected the argument that the absence of compensation for pain and suffering itself infringed the applicant’s constitutional rights, and said it could not prescribe the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or how it should calculate an award at this stage. Those matters could be raised in a further judicial review if the applicant was dissatisfied with the Appeals Tribunal’s decision. The court declined damages, taking account of the interim payment, the final decision and the pending appeal. Having decided the matter on Irish constitutional principles, it did not consider the European Convention claim.