Case Explained: Crime victims sue State for damages amid delay in introducing new compensation scheme – The Irish Times – Legal Perspective

Seven crime victims have initiated separate High Court actions over the State’s failure to introduce a scheme providing, in line with European Union law, for higher compensation for victims of violent crime.

The seven include a man who lost consciousness and suffered facial, back and other injuries during a violent assault in Galway almost 10 years ago.

Solicitor James MacGuill, whose firm MacGuill & Company Solicitors represent all seven, said the State’s failure to introduce a compensation scheme as required following a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling last October is “extraordinary”.

“It is extraordinary that, from October until now, nothing has been done to comply with EU law,” he said. The State has known about difficulties with the existing compensation scheme for about 20 years, he added.

The seven cases are against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General.

The plaintiffs are seeking various orders and declarations, including that the existing compensation scheme is incompatible with EU law. They are also claiming damages for breach of EU law rights.

Established in 1974, the Irish scheme originally provided for payment of general damages, including for pain and suffering, but it was amended in 1986 to exclude such compensation. That was due to concerns that its original scope had serious consequences for the finances of the State, then experiencing an economic recession.

Just over €10 million was paid to 203 victims under the compensation scheme in 2024, but awards under a scheme reformulated to comply with EU law are likely to be multiples of that.

Last October, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in favour of a man who, in High Court proceedings initiated in 2019, argued the scheme is incompatible with EU law.

The man, represented by MacGuill, took the case after he was awarded €645 compensation for injuries suffered during a violent assault on him by a group of men outside his Dublin home in 2015.

High Court Judge Emily Egan, after expressing doubt about the lawfulness of exclusion of compensation for pain and suffering, referred legal issues to the European court.

In its decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union said Ireland had provided for a scheme of compensation subsidiary to reparation victims may obtain from an offender. The scheme was adopted because victims will often be unable to obtain compensation from the offender.

Under a 2004 directive, EU member states must ensure a scheme which guarantees “fair and appropriate” compensation and the exclusion of compensation for pain and suffering under the Irish scheme is precluded by the directive, it held.

The €645 compensation for the man could not be regarded as reflecting the seriousness of the consequences for him of the crime, it said.

When his case returned to the High Court, it was settled last February on terms including the State’s agreement to pay damages, believed to be about €60,000, plus legal costs.

In line with the Court of Justice of the European Union decision, the State consented to a declaration that its compensation scheme for personal injuries criminally inflicted is incompatible with the 2004 European directive in failing to provide for “fair and appropriate” compensation because it excludes general damages, including pain and suffering.

Following the case, a Department of Justice spokesperson said the Government was committed to reforming the compensation scheme, including by putting it on a statutory footing, and work was under way to advance this.

Last month, the Law Reform Commission issued a report describing the existing compensation system as not fit for purpose.

The commission recommended the establishment of a new “victim-centred and rights-based” compensation structure and the extension of compensation to include for “pain and suffering”. It also recommended that the definition of violence be broadened to include non-physical forms such as “mental or emotional harm or distress”.