What does the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme actually pay for?

Vouched financial loss, and since 27 July 2026 pain and suffering too. The Scheme pays for money you actually lost or actually spent because of a violent crime, and — since the amendment of that date — for the injury itself and its lasting effect on you⁰¹. The vouched heads are unchanged and are still the part of an award you can work out for yourself, which is why most of this page is about them. Citizens Information, written before the amendment, lists lost earnings and vouched out-of-pocket expenses and records that general damages such as pain and suffering were not then paid⁰². The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration itemises them as medical and dental treatment, prescriptions, replacement spectacles, travel to obtain treatment, and loss of earnings to date and into the future¹¹.

Documentation decides each head, rather than the severity of the injury. A deep laceration treated once in an emergency department and a fractured jaw treated over eight months produce very different totals, and the difference sits in the receipts and the payslips rather than in any assessment of how bad the assault was.

Paragraph 6: the Scheme's own coverage rule, in full

One paragraph does the work. Paragraph 6 of the Scheme sets the measure of compensation and then removes five things from it, and it is quoted in full in published Tribunal decisions. Most summaries of the Scheme reproduce only the fifth exclusion. The text below is the paragraph as it stood before the amendment of 27 July 2026, which removed the pain and suffering exclusion at sub-paragraph (e). It is reproduced because it is the text every published Tribunal decision applies, and because the four other exclusions in it are unaffected⁰¹.

Two things in that text now matter more than the pain and suffering line, because that line has gone. The first is the measure: compensation is assessed "on the basis of damages awarded under the Civil Liabilities Acts", which is why the Scheme borrows civil law's approach to proving loss rather than inventing its own. The second is that four separate exclusions have nothing to do with pain and suffering at all, each one defeats a claim people regularly bring, and nothing published suggests the amendment of 27 July 2026 touched any of them.

What counts as a covered injury, and a covered crime

Paragraph 1 sets the outer boundary, and it is wider than most people expect in two directions and narrower in one. Compensation may be paid "in respect of personal injury where the injury is directly attributable to a crime of violence", and "the injury must have been sustained within the State or aboard an Irish ship or aircraft"¹⁶.

The same paragraph then removes two arguments a person might otherwise face. "Arson and poisoning will be regarded as coming within the scope of the expression 'crime of violence'", so an injury with no blow struck is still inside the Scheme. And "in determining whether any act is a crime for the purposes of the Scheme, the Tribunal will not take account of any legal immunity which the person who inflicted the injury may have by reason of his mental health, his youth or otherwise"¹⁶. An attacker who is a child, or who is found unfit to be tried, does not put the injury outside the Scheme.

The geographic limit is the hard one. An injury sustained abroad is not covered, even where the applicant lives in Ireland. Where the crime happened in another EU member state, the Tribunal acts as an assisting authority under Council Directive 2004/80/EC, and the application "will be processed by the appropriate authority in the state where the incident occurred, in accordance with the compensation provisions in that state"[36]. That is a forwarding service, not Irish coverage.

Injured while preventing a crime or saving a life

You do not have to be the target of the crime. Paragraph 1 extends the Scheme, "as provided for in Paragraph 4, to circumstances arising from the action of the victim in assisting or attempting to assist the prevention of crime or the saving of human life"¹⁶. The Department's own guidance lists among those who may apply "individuals who sustained a personal injury in circumstances arising from action by them in assisting or attempting to assist the prevention of a reported crime or the saving of human life"¹¹.

The covered heads are then the same ones as for any other applicant: treatment, travel, prescriptions and lost earnings, all vouched. A bystander who intervened in a street assault and broke a wrist is claiming under the same arithmetic as the person who was being assaulted. The full text of Paragraph 4 is not reproduced in the Department's published web pages, so the precise conditions it attaches should be read in the Scheme document before an application is framed on this basis, and the entry conditions generally are set out on who can apply.

Psychological injury, counselling and psychotherapy costs

Treatment for psychological injury has always been claimable. The psychological injury itself was not, until 27 July 2026. The Scheme does not define "personal injury" by reference to physical or psychological harm, and neither the Department's guidance nor Citizens Information mentions psychological injury among the covered heads for non-fatal cases¹¹⁰². What the Tribunal's own published decisions show is that money actually spent on treating psychological injury has always been treated as an ordinary vouched expense. The decisions below were all decided before the amendment, and show what happened to the condition itself.

The consequence for a purely psychological injury used to be stark, and the change matters most to this group. Where an assault caused no lasting physical injury but did cause post-traumatic stress, the recoverable heads were the counselling or psychotherapy you paid for, any earnings you lost, and the cost of reports — and nothing for the condition itself. Since 27 July 2026 the condition itself is within the Scheme, in an amount yet to be set by ministerial guidance⁰¹. The vouched heads still have to be proved in the same way. Free counselling provided through the Health Service Executive or a support service generates no receipt, and therefore no claimable expense, which is the same trap that catches unpaid family care.

Evidence still has to carry the injury. In one refused application the Tribunal was not satisfied on the material before it that an injury had been sustained at all, notwithstanding the applicant's assertion of psychological injury[40]. A report from the treating counsellor or psychologist, linking the condition to the incident, does the work that a receipt alone cannot.

Coverage and eligibility answer two different questions, and an application can satisfy one while failing the other. A loss can sit squarely inside the Scheme and still go unpaid, because the application missed the time limit. Or because the incident was never reported to the Gardaí. Read this page for the arithmetic of what gets paid, and treat the entry conditions as a separate hurdle.

Treatment and medical costs

Treatment costs are reimbursed rather than estimated. Citizens Information sets out four categories for a short-term injury: out-of-pocket expenses backed by original receipts, actual loss of earnings, actual medical expenses including dental and optical work, and reasonable travel expenses connected to the injuries, such as journeys to and from the doctor⁰². Where the injury turns out to be long-term, four further categories open up: estimated future loss of earnings, estimated future medical expenses, estimated future expenses as a result of any disability suffered, and estimated future loss of earning potential⁰². The same page records that the Tribunal "will only make such awards on provision of various specialist reports, including an actuarial assessment"⁰².

One cost regularly gets left off application forms. The expense of obtaining the medical or expert reports that support the application is itself claimable, according to the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration¹¹. An unvouched expense is not merely a discounted expense in the Tribunal's arithmetic, it is a nil expense, so the receipt matters as much as the outlay. Keep originals, keep them dated, and keep them matched to the treatment they paid for.

Loss of earnings, past and future

Lost income is covered on both sides of the assessment date. Scheme terms reach "loss of earnings to date and into the future, incurred, if any, as a result of the criminal injuries sustained", according to the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (Updated July 2026)¹¹. Future loss is not a bonus head added for serious cases, it is the ordinary treatment of an injury whose effects have not finished by the date of assessment.

Proving the figure takes more than a payslip. The same Department page records that assessing loss of earnings "may be complex to determine and may require employer assessment, social welfare reports or actuarial assessment"¹¹. An employee's evidence is payslips, an Employment Detail Summary, an employer letter and medical certificates. A self-employed applicant produces trading accounts for the years either side of the incident, tax returns, and evidence of work turned away or contracts lost.

Sick pay complicates the sum rather than removing it. Wages paid by an employer during the absence, and illness or injury payments made by the State, reduce what remains recoverable, because the Tribunal has to ensure that a person is not compensated twice for the same injury from a different source¹¹. Bring the gross figure and the deductions separately, so the net loss can be seen rather than assumed.

Care, help at home and future disability costs

Care sits under a heading of its own rather than in the main list. Citizens Information provides, for long-term injuries, "estimated future expenses as a result of any disability suffered (such as future care or special equipment required)"⁰², and notes that the Tribunal "will only make such awards on provision of various specialist reports, including an actuarial assessment"⁰². Future care and special equipment are therefore named as examples, though the Department's own list does not itemise care, nursing help or home adaptations¹¹. A continuing care cost is presented under that future expenses heading and proved like any other figure.

In practice, the point that catches most applicants out is who paid for the help. Because the measure is vouched out-of-pocket expense, care supplied free of charge by a spouse, parent or adult child generates no receipt, and a cost that generated no receipt is difficult to place before the Tribunal as an expense of the applicant.

A family member who gave up paid work to provide that care has suffered a real loss, but the loss landed on them rather than on the injured person. Where care is bought in from an agency or a paid carer, invoices exist and the position becomes straightforward.

Two heads therefore dominate almost every application: treatment costs, and lost earnings. Both are checkable against paper, which is exactly why the compensation scheme is built around them, according to Citizens Information (Updated April 2025)⁰². The head that people expect to dominate, and that carries the largest figure in an ordinary court case, is the one this route refused to pay for forty years. That refusal ended on 27 July 2026, and it is the question dealt with next.

Will the Scheme pay for pain and suffering?

Yes, since 27 July 2026 — but the terms are not yet published. On that date the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration amended and published the Scheme, and the amended Scheme "removes the previous Scheme's exclusion of compensation for pain and suffering"⁰¹. Until that date the Scheme paid nothing for pain and suffering in a non-fatal case where the injury was sustained on or after 1 January 2006.

What replaces the exclusion is the harder question. The Department states that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal "shall be within guidance as issued by the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration"⁰¹. That guidance had not been published, and the amended Scheme document itself was not yet available on the Department's own Scheme pages, when this page was checked on 27 July 2026. So the head of loss now exists, and what it is worth does not yet appear in any published source.

What follows sets out what the exclusion said while it lasted, why it fell, and what an applicant is dealing with now. The exclusion's history still matters, because the date rules that governed it are the same date rules the transitional arrangements will have to work around.

What the exclusion said

General damages were the missing head, and the distinction is not a technicality. Irish civil law splits compensation into special damages, meaning quantifiable financial loss, and general damages, meaning the value placed on the injury itself and its effect on the person's life. Until 27 July 2026 compensation under the Scheme ran to the first category and stopped at the second, which is why two people with identical injuries could receive very different sums depending on the route they took. The distinction has not gone away: special damages are still proved by vouching, and the new head will be measured by whatever the Minister's guidance provides rather than by the ordinary civil measure. Where the same facts also support a civil claim, general damages remain available on that side of the line.

Fatal cases always sat outside that exclusion. Dependants of a person who died can be awarded a sum for mental distress under the Civil Liability Act 1961, capped in aggregate rather than per dependant, according to Citizens Information⁰². The exclusion discussed on this page was therefore the non-fatal exclusion, and the two situations should not be read across to each other. The mental distress ceiling in fatal cases is unaffected by the 27 July 2026 amendment so far as any published source states.

Why that exclusion fell

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled against a blanket exclusion in October 2025. The case reached Luxembourg from Ireland, brought by a man born in Spain and resident in Ireland who was attacked outside his home in Dublin on 12 July 2015, suffered permanent partial loss of vision, and received an award covering out-of-pocket expenses only. The ruling was reported at the time as holding that EU law precludes national schemes which exclude compensation for pain and suffering, according to Irish Legal News (Updated October 2025)[13].

The Court of Justice reference began in the Irish High Court. In Blanco v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, Ms Justice Emily Egan referred five questions to Luxembourg[14]. The judgment was delivered in March 2024 and the Court of Justice records the formal order of reference as having been made on 12 April 2024 and received on 23 April 2024⁰³. Reporting the judgment, Irish Legal News records her as finding "it hard to see how compensation can be said to take into account the ‘seriousness of the consequences’ for the victim… if damages for ‘pain and suffering’ are entirely excluded"[14]. That reference was decided on the Scheme text as it stood for an injury sustained in 2015, which excluded pain and suffering for injuries "sustained on or after 1 April 1986"¹⁴. The Court of Justice records the same 1986 amendment⁰³.

What that exclusion was worth, in one case

The same applicant later settled for around €60,000. The man assaulted in Dublin in July 2015 who received €645 from the Tribunal for out-of-pocket expenses subsequently settled with the State for a sum the newspaper describes as "believed to be about" €60,000, according to The Irish Times (20 February 2026)[42].

The gap is the point all the same. On the same facts the vouched-expenses head produced €645.65, while the settlement of the EU-law claim was reported in a different order of magnitude entirely. That comparison is specific to one case and to a claim against the State rather than to the Scheme, but it explains why the exclusion, rather than any question of eligibility, was the thing most worth taking advice on — and why its removal matters more than any other change to the Scheme in fifty years.

The delay was itself before the High Court

Seven crime victims sued the State over it in April 2026. Separate High Court actions were issued against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, seeking declarations that the existing scheme breaches EU law and damages for breach of EU rights, according to The Irish Times (3 April 2026)[43]. Their solicitor is reported as saying that "it is extraordinary that, from October until now, nothing has been done to comply with EU law"⁴³.

Those proceedings were issued before the Scheme was amended, and the amendment of 27 July 2026 addresses the substance of the complaint. What it does not obviously address is the position of applicants whose files were decided under the old terms during the period between the Court of Justice ruling and the amendment. That question is live rather than theoretical, and a separate route — an action against the State rather than an application to the Tribunal — has been tested by others on facts that may resemble your own. Neither is a reason to delay an application, because the time limit runs regardless, but both are reasons to take advice on sequencing rather than simply applying and waiting.

Two dates, and the one that applies to you: 1986 and 2006

Both dates are real, and they belong to different versions of the Scheme. Anyone reading about this exclusion will meet 1 April 1986 in the case law and 1 January 2006 in the Scheme text, and the two are easy to mistake for a contradiction. The explanation is that the Scheme has been revised more than once, and the Tribunal applies the version in force for the application before it.

Injuries sustained before 1 January 2006

The exclusion had a boundary, and it looked backwards. On the face of Paragraph 6(e), the bar on pain and suffering applied "in so far as injuries sustained on or after 1 January, 2006 are concerned"¹⁶. An injury sustained before that date was not caught by the words of the exclusion, and the Tribunal's own published decisions show it treating the position that way. This mattered enormously until 27 July 2026 and matters less now the exclusion has been removed altogether — but it still matters, because the amended Scheme's transitional arrangements have not been published and an older application may yet be decided on older terms⁰¹.

This was the single most overlooked point about what the Scheme covered, and it mattered most to the people least likely to know it. Survivors of historic sexual or physical abuse are the group whose injuries most often predate the exclusion, and for them the largest head of loss was open even while it was closed to everyone else. Two cautions attach to it. The dates in the published decision are redacted, so the decision does not itself prove where the Tribunal draws the line, and the time limit for applying is a separate and formidable obstacle, dealt with under time limits in Ireland. Anyone in that position should take advice on the date question specifically rather than assume any particular version of the Scheme will be applied to their file.

A ruling of that kind does not rewrite a national scheme by itself. Because this is an administrative scheme whose terms are set by the Government, the text had to be amended before the Tribunal could assess a claim for pain and suffering. That amendment was agreed on 14 April 2026 and made and published on 27 July 2026⁰¹. What the amended text says about which applications it reaches, and what the Minister's guidance will say about amounts, is why the timing question deserves its own section below.

What changed on 27 July 2026, and what has not

Two separate things have been moving at once, and they are easy to confuse. One is an amendment to the existing Scheme, which the Government agreed on 14 April 2026 and which the Department made and published on 27 July 2026⁰¹. That has happened. The other is a proposal to replace the Scheme entirely with a statutory body, recommended by the Law Reform Commission in March 2026[04]. That has not happened, and the two run on different timescales.

What the amendment did, and did not, change

An amendment changes the terms rather than the institution. The Tribunal continues to operate, the application process continues as it did, and a new head of loss has become available for the first time since 1986. Everything else described on this page — vouching, the deduction rules, the €500 floor, the traffic-offence exclusion, the conduct and provocation provisions — is unaffected so far as any published source states.

The two questions applicants most want answered, namely how much and from when, still cannot be answered from a published source. The Department says the amount "shall be within guidance as issued by the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration"⁰¹, and that guidance was not published when this page was checked. On timing, the Department records that the amended Scheme "provides arrangements for existing applications for compensation submitted prior to 27 July 2026 that have not been finalised" and "provides transitionary arrangements for the acceptance of late applications to the Scheme per specified dates"⁰¹. Both are summaries of the amended text rather than the text itself, and neither states the specified dates.

Two practical consequences follow. If you have an application in the system that has not been finalised, it appears to be within the arrangements the Department describes, and that is worth raising with the Tribunal secretariat now rather than waiting to be written to. And if you were previously outside the time limit, the transitional late-application arrangements may open a window — but a window with specified dates is a window that closes. The background to the Scheme's structure is set out in more detail on the Scheme explained.

Replacing the Tribunal with a statutory body

The Law Reform Commission proposed something more fundamental in March 2026. Its Report on Compensating Victims of Crime recommends a dedicated independent statutory body to replace the current Tribunal, operating in three tiers: an assistive tier, an adjudicative tier, and an appeals tier heard by a three-person panel, according to the Law Society Gazette (Updated March 2026)[10].

The Commission's recommendations include compensation for pain and suffering, a two-year application deadline with children able to apply until two years after turning 18, legal representation in appropriate situations including complex cases or where the applicant is vulnerable, and a mechanism for expedited payment¹⁰.

What no published source yet answers

The amendment answered the biggest question and left three others open. Each of the three is the question a person in that situation most wants settled, and each depends on text or guidance that has not been published. Anyone who tells you the answer today is guessing.

Two things follow for anyone deciding what to do now. Waiting for the Minister's guidance is not a neutral choice, because the time limit runs on its own timetable and no publication date has been given for the guidance⁰¹. And if you are within the acceptance window on a decision already made, the three-month period in Instruction 1 is worth knowing about before it expires⁴¹, because a closed and archived file is a worse starting point than a live one now that the exclusion has gone.

Recommendations of that kind carry no legal force on publication. The Commission published a draft Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence Bill 2026 alongside the report, and a draft Bill is not an enacted Bill: it has to be introduced, passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and signed before any of it applies to an applicant⁰⁴. Whether the Government proceeds with the statutory model, the interim amendment, or both in sequence is not something any published source states today.

What the Scheme does not cover

The exclusions are as important as the inclusions, because most rejected or reduced awards fail on one of them rather than on eligibility. According to the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, "the Scheme makes no provision for awarding legal costs and consequently the Tribunal has never awarded legal costs to an applicant"¹¹. Citizens Information adds that the Scheme "covers personal injury only and makes no provision for compensation in respect of stolen or damaged property"⁰².

Each exclusion has a different reason behind it, and knowing which one you are facing tells you whether another route exists.

Injuries caused by a vehicle

A car is treated as a traffic matter until it is treated as a weapon. Paragraph 11 of the Scheme provides that "no compensation will be payable in respect of injuries inflicted in a traffic offence except in a case where there has been, in the opinion of the Tribunal, a deliberate attempt to run down the victim"¹⁷. Citizens Information states the same rule from the applicant's side⁰².

The line therefore falls on intention rather than on severity. A dangerous-driving injury, however serious and however culpable the driver, is outside the Scheme. A vehicle driven at a person deliberately is inside it, subject to the Tribunal forming that opinion on the evidence. Injuries caused by an uninsured or untraced driver in the ordinary course of a road traffic collision are dealt with through a different mechanism entirely, and the Garda investigation file usually decides which characterisation the incident carries.

The exclusion that was removed: living in the same household

An assault by someone you lived with used to be excluded outright, and no longer is. The Scheme formerly provided, at Paragraph 10, that "no compensation will be payable where the offender and the victim were living together as members of the same household at the time the injuries were inflicted"[28]. That paragraph was deleted by the reforms announced on 20 April 2021, which removed "Paragraph 10 of the Scheme, which prevented awards being made where the crime was committed by a member of the same household"[27].

The practical effect is that injuries inflicted in a domestic setting are now assessed on the same heads as any other violent crime. Older material describing a household bar is describing a rule that no longer exists, though an application concerning an incident that predates the revision may still meet the version then in force. The deletion is also why Scheme paragraph numbers shifted, which is set out below.

Falling outside the Scheme does not always mean falling outside compensation. A member of An Garda Síochána maliciously injured in the course of duty has a dedicated statutory route under the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 2022, which works on different principles and different limits. Where a violent assault happened on premises whose occupier failed to take reasonable security measures, inadequate security assault claims address a defendant who is not the attacker. Neither route is a substitute for the other, and the choice usually turns on who was at fault and who can pay.

Key facts at a glance

Where a head the Scheme does not reach is covered instead

An exclusion tells you which route is wrong, not that no route exists. Several of the heads the Scheme does not reach are recoverable elsewhere on the same facts, and the choice usually turns on who the applicant is and whether an offender was convicted. This section maps the exclusions to the routes that reach them. Each route has its own conditions, and none of them is a substitute for advice on your own facts.

Compensation orders in the criminal court

A conviction opens a route the Scheme cannot offer, because it reaches the full civil measure. On conviction, a court "may, unless it sees reason to the contrary, make (on application or otherwise) an order … requiring him to pay compensation in respect of any personal injury or loss resulting from that offence … to any person … who has suffered such injury or loss"³². The amount is not capped by any Scheme-style list of heads. Under section 6(2) it may not exceed "the amount of the damages that, in the opinion of the court, the injured party would be entitled to recover in a civil action against the convicted person in respect of the injury or loss concerned"³², which is a measure that includes general damages. The same subsection additionally caps an order made by the District Court at that court's jurisdiction in tort³².

Two consequences follow, and they pull in opposite directions. A compensation order can cover what the Scheme will not, but it is only as good as the offender's means, which is the very problem the Scheme exists to solve. And money actually received under such an order is then deducted from a Scheme award, because the Scheme deducts "any sums paid to or for the benefit of the victim or his dependants by way of compensation or damages from the offender or any person on the offender's behalf following the injury"[20]. Section 9 of the 1993 Act performs the same balancing in the other direction, reducing later civil damages by any amount paid under the order³².

Gardaí and prison officers: different schemes, different coverage

Coverage depends on who the injured person is, not only on what happened. A member of An Garda Síochána maliciously injured in the performance of duty claims under the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 2022 route, where the assessment must "have regard to the personal injuries guidelines" and to "the pain and suffering occasioned by the injuries to the claimant"³³. That is a statutory entitlement measured in a way the general Scheme is not.

The Tribunal also administers a separate Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted on Prison Officers. The Department's published guidance on the general Scheme states expressly that it "concerns the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted only and not the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted on Prison Officers"¹¹, and the Law Reform Commission records that the prison officers scheme "operates on different terms and compensates prison officers only"[34]. Its terms are not published online, so nothing on this page should be read as describing what it covers.

The Scheme paragraph by paragraph

Paragraph numbers changed in 2021, and the old numbers are still in circulation. Anyone reading a Tribunal decision, a solicitor's letter or an older guide will meet two numbering systems for the same rules, because the deletion of the former Paragraph 10 shifted the paragraphs after it. The Tribunal's own published decisions collection carries most of the mapping in its section headings¹⁵. Those headings run only as far as Paragraph 15, so the rows below for Paragraphs 4, 19, 20 and 22 are sourced separately, from the decisions and Instructions cited against them.

Reading a decision against the wrong numbering is the commonest way to misread the Scheme. A decision on an application made before the revision will cite the conduct and character provision as Paragraph 14 and the provocation provision as Paragraph 13, while a decision applying the current text puts them at 13 and 12 respectively¹⁵. The wording of both provisions was carried across substantially unchanged, so the substance is the same and only the label moved.

How does the Tribunal work out what you get?

The Scheme borrows its measure of loss from ordinary Irish civil law. Irish damages law divides compensation into general and special damages, and until 27 July 2026 the Scheme assessed the special damages side only, according to Citizens Information (Updated April 2025)⁰². On the special damages side nothing has changed: no award is calculated from a scale of injury severity, the figure is built from documents, added up, and then reduced by anything already paid for the same loss¹¹. How the general damages side will be valued is a matter for guidance to be issued by the Minister, which was not published when this page was checked⁰¹.

Unlike in England and Wales, in Ireland there is no fixed tariff of injury values under the Scheme, because the Irish Tribunal measures actual vouched loss rather than banding the injury. That difference explains why comparisons drawn from British guidance mislead applicants here. It also explains why the Judicial Council's Personal Injuries Guidelines, which set the value of the injury itself in Irish civil cases[09], had no direct role in a Scheme assessment while the general damages exclusion stood. Whether the Minister's guidance adopts them, adapts them or departs from them is not published⁰¹.

Vouching and what counts as proof

Documents carry the assessment, not description. Citizens Information describes the covered categories as "vouched (proven by original receipts) out-of-pocket expenses and bills" alongside lost earnings⁰², which sets a documentary standard rather than a narrative one. A well-supported application therefore looks like a bundle: receipts and invoices in date order, earnings evidence, medical reports addressing both treatment and prognosis, and a schedule that adds the figures up.

Gaps in that bundle are the most common reason a figure comes back lower than expected. An expense you paid in cash and cannot evidence is treated as an expense you did not incur, which is a harsher outcome than a partial allowance. Running each item through the Four-Head Recovery Check before submission catches most of those gaps while they can still be fixed. The order in which the documents are gathered and submitted is dealt with separately on how to apply.

Deductions and double recovery

Three separate Scheme paragraphs take money off the total, and they operate on different sources. Paragraph 14 reaches social welfare and employer sick pay, Paragraph 15 reaches anything paid by the offender, and Paragraph 5 governs what happens where compensation is available from any other source at all. Each is worth reading in its own words, because the deduction is mechanical rather than discretionary.

Note the words "the value of the entitlement". The reduction is measured by what you were entitled to receive, which is not always the same as what you actually claimed. A person who did not apply for illness benefit they were entitled to cannot improve the Scheme award by that omission.

The reach of "any person on the offender's behalf" surprises applicants. A payment made by an assailant's family, or handed over in the criminal court, is deducted in full. In one published decision a payment of €250 by the assailant's father reduced a calculated figure of €267.83 to €17.83, which then fell below the minimum award and produced nothing²⁴.

Two features of Paragraph 5 matter to anyone running a Scheme application alongside a civil claim. The Tribunal may make no award at all where an award would duplicate compensation, and it may attach a repayment condition so that money must be handed back if compensation later arrives from elsewhere. In the decision quoted above the applicant had settled High Court proceedings on an all-in basis that covered the same special damages, and the Scheme application produced nothing¹⁸. Sequencing and the wording of any civil settlement therefore have direct consequences for the Scheme award.

Payments from elsewhere reduce the award rather than barring the application. The Department states that where an applicant "has received funding from another source (for example: Department of Social Protection, HSE)", the applicant is not prohibited from applying, but "the Tribunal has to ensure that a person is not being or has not been compensated for the same injury from a different source"¹¹. Citizens Information records that the Tribunal considers social welfare payments, agriculture payments, and salary or wages received while on sick leave⁰².

Two practical consequences follow. Wages paid in full by an employer during your absence remove the earnings loss for that period, because the loss fell on the employer instead.

Treatment paid for by a private health insurer is not your out-of-pocket expense, and only the shortfall you actually met is recoverable on the vouched-expense standard⁰². List each deduction against the gross figure it reduces. A net figure with no workings behind it invites a query rather than an award.

State-funded treatment is the most common example of a cost you cannot recover. Where the HSE or a medical card has already met your medical or prescription costs, those costs cannot be recovered again, according to the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration¹¹. A medical card holder who paid nothing out of pocket has nothing to vouch under that head, a frequent reason a genuine applicant recovers less than expected.

Worked figures from published Tribunal decisions

The Tribunal publishes its own decisions, and they show the arithmetic. No average tells an applicant what their own file is worth, but published decisions show how a total is actually built and, more usefully, how deductions dismantle one. The figures below are taken from decisions published by the Tribunal on gov.ie. They are examples of how the Scheme operates, not a guide to what any other case will produce.

Read together, those four decisions make a point no summary of the heads of loss can. The largest of them, at €5,120.73, turns almost entirely on a single payslip figure. The smallest, at €245.33, records psychological injury that the Tribunal expressly could not compensate²⁵. And one produced nothing at all despite a real and proven wage loss, because two deductions consumed it²⁰.

The published set also puts the €500 floor in perspective. An application resting on a single emergency department attendance and a few prescriptions can land below it, while travel to repeated appointments and a few weeks of certified absence will usually clear it comfortably. Totalling the vouched figures before deciding whether to apply is therefore worth more than estimating from the seriousness of the assault.

Work out your own figure: the Four-Head Recovery Check

This adds up figures you already have. It does not value a claim. It covers the vouched financial heads only. It does not touch pain and suffering, which the Scheme has compensated since 27 July 2026 on a basis the Minister's guidance has yet to set⁰¹, so nothing here estimates what a case is worth. What it does is run each vouched loss through the four tests set out earlier, apply the deductions in Paragraphs 5, 14 and 15, and test the result against the €500 minimum in Paragraph 9. The output is a schedule of loss you can print and bring to a solicitor.

How and when the money is paid

One payment, at the end, with one exception. Paragraph 8 of the Scheme deals with the form of payment and with what happens where the medical position is not yet settled.

Three practical points follow from that paragraph. There is no periodic payment order under the Scheme, so a catastrophic injury is met with a single capital sum rather than an income stream, which is a further structural difference from a serious civil claim. An interim award is available where prognosis is genuinely unresolved rather than merely inconvenient: in the decision quoted, the Tribunal made an interim award of €30,000 while the medical position was outstanding, and recorded that the interim sum would be deducted from any eventual final award¹⁹. And the trigger is the delay in final medical assessment, not the applicant's financial need, which is a distinction worth understanding before an interim award is sought.

Where the applicant is a child, the money may not be handed over at once. Citizens Information records that "if you are under 18 years old, the Tribunal may invest the money until you become an adult"⁰². In one published fatal decision the Tribunal apportioned €20,000 of a €35,000 mental distress award to a minor son, to be held in trust until he reached 18 (decision F/53762, 13 February 2024)[39].

The cost of reports, even where the application fails

One reimbursement survives a refusal. Under Tribunal Instruction 4, made under Paragraph 19 of the Scheme, "where an award for compensation under the Scheme is refused, the Tribunal may in exceptional circumstances, direct that the applicant be reimbursed in full or in part for his or her vouched costs for specific medical and/or other expert reports, which were incurred by the applicant at the request or direction of the Tribunal"²⁶.

Three limits are built into that sentence, and all three bite. It applies only where the application is refused, only in exceptional circumstances, and only to reports obtained at the Tribunal's request or direction. A report you commissioned on your own initiative, in a case that fails, falls outside it. Where the Tribunal asks for a report, keeping the request in writing alongside the invoice is what makes the claim for it possible later.

Why Scheme awards differ from civil compensation

One head explained most of the gap for forty years. The measure is borrowed from the same body of law that governs personal injury claims in Ireland, but until 27 July 2026 one head of loss was taken out of it, and that single removal is what explained most of the gap between a Scheme award and a court settlement. A court award for a serious assault typically carries a substantial general damages figure for the injury itself, assessed by reference to the Judicial Council's Personal Injuries Guidelines⁰⁹. Remove that figure and what remained was the receipts and the payslips. That head now exists under the Scheme, but it is to be valued by guidance issued by the Minister rather than by the civil measure⁰¹, so some gap is likely to remain and its size is not yet knowable.

Unlike in England and Wales, in Ireland the Scheme does not apply a multiple-injury formula that pays a reduced percentage for a second and third injury, because there is no tariff to apply percentages to. Multiple injuries under the Irish Scheme simply generate more expense and more lost income, each vouched on its own terms. The comparison that clients most often bring to a first meeting is a newspaper report of a court award, and the difference they are looking at is almost always structural rather than a sign that their own application was handled badly.

Published Tribunal figures for 2024

Published Tribunal figures give the scale of the Scheme rather than the value of any individual case. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal awarded €14.1 million in total during 2024, according to Irish Legal News (Updated September 2025) reporting the Tribunal's Annual Report 2024[45][12]. The figures in this section are reported by named news sources; the underlying report is published by the Tribunal itself and is linked here so the primary document can be checked directly⁴⁵.

Under the general scheme, €10.015 million went to 203 applicants, according to the Law Society Gazette[07]. A separate prison officers scheme accounted for €4.133 million across 132 awards[37]. Those totals describe the Scheme rather than any individual application, and dividing one by the other would not produce a figure that means anything for a particular case.

The average follows from those totals, and it moved sharply. The Irish Examiner's report of the Annual Report 2024 gives an average of €49,335 per award under the general scheme, up from €27,838 in 2023, and €31,310 per award under the prison officers scheme³⁷. Published reports differ on the prison officers figure, some giving 120 applicants and others 132 awards¹²³⁷. Both are right: around 120 officers received 132 awards between them, because an officer may make more than one claim, and the €31,310 figure is an average per award rather than per officer.

Averages of that kind describe a caseload, not a case, and this one is a particularly unreliable guide. Every award in that period was built from the individual applicant's own vouched losses, with nothing for pain and suffering, so a mean of €49,335 tells you nothing about what any particular set of receipts and payslips will produce — and less still about what an award made after 27 July 2026 will look like. It is also pulled upward by a small number of very large future-loss cases: the published decisions in the same period include totals of €245.33²⁵ and €4,150²¹ alongside one of €73,671¹⁶. A median would be more informative than a mean, and none is published.

The two routes are not alternatives in the way people assume

A civil personal injury claim normally starts with the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB), which assesses the claim before any court proceedings, whereas a Scheme application goes straight to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and never touches that process. The two routes also depend on different things. A civil claim needs an identified defendant with means or insurance behind them, while a Scheme application does not depend on the attacker being identified, solvent or insured at all.

Pursuing one does not automatically bar the other, but the arithmetic is policed. Where an applicant claims compensation otherwise than under the Scheme, for example through the courts, the Tribunal has to ensure that the same injury is not compensated twice from a different source¹¹. Sequencing therefore matters more than most applicants expect, and it is a decision worth taking before either route is started rather than after.

What if your situation is not straightforward?

Most difficult cases turn on one of four things. The first is timing, where an application sits close to a deadline, or was submitted before 27 July 2026 and has not been finalised, or may fall within the transitional late-application arrangements. The second is overlap, where an employer, an insurer or the State has already paid something towards the same loss.

The third is conduct, where the applicant's own behaviour before or during the incident is likely to be raised. The fourth is proof, where the loss is real and the paperwork behind it is not.

Each of those changes what should be submitted and when. None of them is answered by reading a list of covered expenses, because the question stops being what the Scheme pays for and becomes how your particular facts meet it.

Conduct, character, provocation and reduced awards

An award can be refused or cut for reasons unconnected to the loss. Two separate paragraphs do this work, and they are regularly confused with one another because the 2021 renumbering swapped their labels. Paragraph 13, formerly Paragraph 14, deals with conduct, character and way of life. Paragraph 12, formerly Paragraph 13, deals with provocation and part-responsibility. A conduct point and a provocation point are different arguments and call for different answers.

Both paragraphs are worded as a bar first and a reduction second, which is the structure that matters in practice. The Tribunal does not have to choose between paying in full and paying nothing: a partial reduction is expressly available under each. In one published fatal decision a mental distress award was reduced by half rather than refused (decision F/53765, 28 February 2023)³⁹. An applicant facing either point is therefore arguing about the size of the reduction as much as about the principle.

The High Court has confirmed that the conduct provision reaches beyond the injured person. Compensation is not payable where "the conduct, character or way of life of the victim makes it inappropriate that he should be granted an award", as reported of the High Court's February 2024 judgment[05]. The common assumption is that the provision targets what happened during the incident, when the wording is wider than that.

Two practical points follow for anyone whose history may be raised. Previous convictions are not automatically fatal to an application, because the test asks whether an award would be inappropriate rather than whether a record exists, and the reported case involved a substantial record connected to the circumstances of the death. Disclosure is still better handled at the outset than in response to a query, since the Tribunal will form a view either way and an unexplained history reads worse than an explained one.

Will a Scheme award affect your social welfare payments?

Three different questions get collapsed into one here. The first is whether the State claws back benefits out of an award, the second is whether benefits already received reduce the award itself, and the third is whether a lump sum affects a payment you are getting now or may claim later. The answers differ, and the third one depends on which payment you are on.

On the first question, the position is set out in the Department of Social Protection's own guidance. The Recovery of Benefits and Assistance scheme applies to compensation payments for personal injuries made on or after 1 August 2014, and payments made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal are listed among the exceptions to it, according to the Department of Social Protection (Updated January 2025)[06].

Compensation for injuries causing death is also outside that recovery scheme⁰⁶. The position stated here is the position published as at 27 July 2026 and should be re-checked before an award is finalised.

On the second question, benefits already paid do affect the sum. The Tribunal takes account of social welfare payments, agriculture payments, and salary or wages received while on sick leave from work, according to Citizens Information⁰². Illness benefit received during an absence therefore reduces the earnings loss the Scheme is being asked to meet, even though the Department is not recovering that benefit out of the award.

A question worth putting to the Department in writing before an award lands, rather than afterwards, is how the lump sum will be treated for the specific payment you receive. Written confirmation is easier to obtain in advance and avoids an overpayment being raised months later, and the Department's own operational guidelines are the document to quote when asking⁰⁶.

Is a Scheme award taxable?

The award itself is compensation rather than income, and Revenue names this Tribunal expressly. Revenue's guidance on personal injury compensation payments states that "if you receive a personal injury compensation payment, you may not have to pay tax on it", and the payments it lists include those made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal[29]. What follows is general information about how such payments are treated and is not tax advice; the treatment of your own award should be confirmed with Revenue or an accountant before it is received.

Two distinct questions sit inside this, and conflating them is where people go wrong. The first is whether the lump sum is taxed. The second is whether the income the lump sum later generates is taxed. The answers are different.

The investment exemption is narrower than it first sounds, and both of its conditions have to be met. The incapacity test is permanent and total incapacity from maintaining oneself, which is a high threshold, and the arithmetic test requires the compensation-derived income and gains to exceed half of the person's aggregate income and gains³¹. Where the exemption does apply, returns still have to be filed³¹.

One point of interaction with the rest of this page deserves emphasis. Because the Scheme currently pays only vouched expenses and lost earnings, the award reimburses money already gone rather than replacing an income stream, which is part of why it does not present as taxable income. That characterisation is worth revisiting once the amended Scheme providing for pain and suffering is published, and the position on this page should be re-checked against Revenue's own guidance at that point²⁹.

Fatal cases: what dependants can claim

A different set of heads applies after a death. Where a person dies as a result of a crime of violence, dependants may apply in their own right, and the Scheme reaches funeral and burial expenses, loss of dependency, and a payment for mental distress. Mental distress is the one head of a non-financial kind the Scheme has always recognised, which is why the pain and suffering exclusion removed on 27 July 2026 was a non-fatal exclusion rather than a general one.

The ceiling is statutory rather than a figure the Scheme chose. Paragraph 6(e) provides that "in fatal cases, the maximum award for compensation for pain and suffering is limited to the maximum amount set in any Statutory Instrument made pursuant to section 49 (1A) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 as amended"¹⁶, and a published Tribunal decision footnotes "section 49 (1A)(b) of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, as inserted by Section 2 (1)(b) of the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 1996" together with S.I. No. 6 of 2014 (decision F/53762, 13 February 2024)³⁹. The Scheme’s cross-reference is to the power rather than to the ceiling: the maximum itself sits in section 49(1)(b) of the 1961 Act, while section 49(1A) is the Minister’s power to vary that figure by order[44].

Who counts as a dependant is settled by section 47 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 rather than by the Scheme[08]³⁹.

Fatal awards are also where the reduction provisions are visible in practice. In one published fatal decision the total mental distress figure was reduced by 50 per cent to €17,500, of which €5,000 was awarded to a named dependant and the remaining €12,500 to the applicant "to be distributed amongst the remaining statutory dependants, or not, entirely at her discretion" (decision F/53765, 28 February 2023)³⁹. Funeral and burial costs are vouched in the ordinary way and are not caught by the mental distress ceiling.

Loss of dependency is assessed separately and is usually the larger figure. The claim measures the financial support the household has lost, which turns on the deceased's earnings, the extent to which those earnings supported each dependant, and how long that support would have continued. Funeral and burial costs are treated as vouched expenses in the ordinary way, so receipts and invoices carry them.

The mental distress head has its own rules in Irish law, including who counts as a dependant and how the sum is apportioned, and those are set out under the mental distress payment as it operates under the Civil Liability Act 1961[08]. The application process and the evidence involved where a death has occurred are dealt with in more detail for families after a fatal crime.

Terms used on this page

Six terms carry most of the meaning in any discussion of what the Scheme covers, and three of them mean something narrower here than in ordinary use.

Frequently asked questions

Deciding what to do next

Should I wait for the Minister's guidance before applying?

No. The amended Scheme has been in force since 27 July 2026, and no published source states when the guidance setting award amounts will appear, so waiting means waiting without a date. Time limits run on their own timetable regardless: the ordinary application period is three months from the incident, and later applications up to two years are considered only where the Tribunal is satisfied the circumstances justify it¹¹. The amended Scheme also makes transitional arrangements for late applications "per specified dates", which is a reason to move sooner rather than later⁰¹. Establish which deadline applies to your own incident before treating the guidance as a reason to hold off; the position is set out under time limits in Ireland.

Does it matter whether the offender was ever caught or convicted?

A conviction is not a precondition for an award. The Scheme does not require the attacker to be identified, prosecuted or convicted, which is one of its practical advantages over a court claim, where an unidentified or insolvent defendant ends the matter. Reporting the incident to the Gardaí and cooperating with the investigation are separate conditions that do matter to an application, and those entry requirements are dealt with under who can apply in Ireland.

What if the assault happened at work?

Two routes can run alongside each other on the same facts. A Scheme application asks what the injury cost you in money, while a claim arising out of the employment asks whether the employer's system of work, training or security was adequate. The same injury, examined through two different questions, produces two different assessments, and the Tribunal's duty to avoid double compensation polices the overlap¹¹. The employment side is covered under violence and assault at work.

Working out which route, or which combination of routes, produces compensation for injury in Ireland on your particular facts is a decision best taken before either one is started. Personal injury solicitors in Dublin who handle both the Scheme and civil actions can assess the sequencing, the deadlines and the evidence in a single review.

What on this page changes, and where to re-check it

Some facts on this page are stable and some are volatile. The table below separates them, so that a reader returning in six months knows which lines to distrust and where to verify them.

Information on this page was checked against the sources listed below on 27 July 2026, the day the amended Scheme was published. The Department's subordinate Scheme pages still carried the superseded pre-amendment text on that date, and the Minister's guidance on award amounts had not been issued, so the position should be re-checked against the Department's published Scheme pages⁰¹ before an application is made or any figure on this page is relied on.

Related pages on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

• The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and Tribunal explained — how the Scheme is structured and who administers it.
• Who can apply for criminal injuries compensation in Ireland — the entry conditions, including the Garda reporting requirement, which are separate from the coverage rules on this page.
• Criminal injuries compensation time limits — three months, and the two-year exceptional extension.
• How to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal — the process, the forms and the order in which evidence is gathered.
• Criminal injuries compensation compared with a civil claim — the full comparison of the two routes.
• Criminal injuries compensation after a death — what dependants can claim, in detail.
• General damages and special damages in Irish law — the civil distinction the Scheme borrows and then narrows.

References

1. Official guidance Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. Terms and Conditions of the Scheme. gov.ie, updated 3 July 2026.
2. Official guidance Citizens Information. Compensation for victims of crime. Page edited 11 April 2025.
3. Case law Court of Justice of the European Union. Case C-284/24, LD v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and Others, judgment of 2 October 2025. EUR-Lex.
4. Law reform report Law Reform Commission. Compensating Victims of Crime (LRC 130), published 23 March 2026 with a draft Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence Bill 2026. The draft Bill had not been introduced in the Oireachtas as at 27 July 2026.
5. Case law Cunningham Cummins & anor v The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal & ors [2024] IEHC 143, High Court, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty, judgment delivered 23 February 2024. Courts Service of Ireland. Reported by Irish Legal News, 19 March 2024.
6. Official guidance Department of Social Protection. Operational Guidelines: Recovery of Benefits and Assistance (RBA) Scheme. gov.ie, updated 23 January 2025.
7. Professional body Law Society Gazette. €10 million paid out to crime victims last year, 26 September 2025, reporting the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal Annual Report 2024.
8. Legislation Civil Liability Act 1961. Irish Statute Book.
9. Official guidance Judicial Council. Personal Injuries Guidelines. Adopted 6 March 2021 and effective from April 2021 on commencement of the relevant Judicial Council Act 2019 provisions. The 2021 Guidelines remain the operative version: the Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee’s draft amendments, submitted to the Minister on 4 February 2025, were not brought to the Oireachtas for approval and have no force of law.
10. Professional body Law Society Gazette. LRC proposes overhaul of victim compensation scheme, 24 March 2026.
11. Official guidance Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme: Your Questions Answered. gov.ie, updated 3 July 2026.
12. Legal news Irish Legal News. Significant increase in applications for criminal injuries compensation, 26 September 2025.
13. Legal news Irish Legal News. CJEU: EU law precludes criminal injuries compensation schemes which do not cover 'pain and suffering', 3 October 2025.
14. Case law Blanco v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal & Ors [2024] IEHC 171, High Court, Ms Justice Emily Egan, 22 March 2024. The applicant's out-of-pocket award was €645.65, and the High Court referred five questions to the Court of Justice on the pain and suffering exclusion. The Court of Justice records the order of reference as made on 12 April 2024 and received on 23 April 2024[03]. Full text is hosted by europeanrights.eu; the judgment is not currently published at a stable courts.ie address.
15. Official guidance Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decisions by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. gov.ie. The collection's own section headings give the current and pre-2021 paragraph numbers, for example "Paragraph 13 (previously 14): Victim's conduct, character or way of life".
16. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 53823, 26 July 2024. gov.ie. Quotes Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 6 of the Scheme in full; total award €73,671.
17. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 54815, 22 April 2022. gov.ie. Quotes Paragraph 11 on injuries inflicted in a traffic offence.
18. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 50949, 3 October 2022. gov.ie. Quotes Paragraph 5 on compensation available from another source; nil award where a High Court settlement covered the same special damages.
19. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 54644, 7 May 2022. gov.ie. Quotes Paragraph 8 on lump sum payment and interim awards; interim award of €30,000.
20. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 52615, 23 July 2022. gov.ie. Quotes Paragraphs 14 and 15 on social welfare, sick pay and compensation from the offender; no award after deductions.
21. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 53693, 20 January 2024. gov.ie. Counselling fees of €2,030 allowed as vouched expenses within a total award of €4,150.
22. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 10570, 16 August 2022. gov.ie. General damages of €25,000 for psychological injury, plus €810 counselling, where the incidents predated the change to the Scheme.
23. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 53821, 17 May 2022. gov.ie. Loss of earnings of €9,329.23 less illness and disablement benefit of €4,208.50, producing €5,120.73.
24. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 50982, 11 May 2022. gov.ie. Quotes Paragraph 9 and records the minimum award history from £50 to €250; award extinguished by €250 paid by the assailant's father.
25. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 52909, 24 February 2024. gov.ie. Award of €245.33 in vouched expenses, with psychological injury acknowledged but not compensable.
26. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Instruction 4: Report costs incurred at the request or direction of Tribunal, 1 July 2021. gov.ie. Made under Paragraph 19 of the Scheme.
27. Official guidance Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. Minister McEntee announces reforms to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, 20 April 2021. gov.ie. Records the removal of Paragraph 10, the increase of the minimum award to €500, and the explicit solatium provision.
28. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 53928, 4 September 2023. gov.ie. Quotes the former Paragraph 10 same-household exclusion.
29. Official guidance Revenue Commissioners. Personal injury compensation payments. revenue.ie, published 27 May 2026. Lists Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal payments among qualifying payments.
30. Legislation Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, section 613. Irish Statute Book. Section 613(1)(c) excludes compensation or damages for a wrong or injury to the person from chargeable gains.
31. Official guidance Revenue Commissioners. Tax and Duty Manual Part 07-01-02: Compensation Payments in respect of Personal Injuries (Exemption of Investment Income), updated October 2025, on sections 189 and 189A, Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.
32. Legislation Criminal Justice Act 1993, section 6 (compensation orders) and section 9 (effect of a compensation order on civil proceedings). Irish Statute Book.
33. Legislation Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 2022, section 23. Irish Statute Book. Section 23(4)(a) requires regard to the personal injuries guidelines adopted and published by the Judicial Council; section 23(4)(d) requires regard to "the pain and suffering occasioned by the injuries to the claimant". The Act (No. 33 of 2022) was commenced on 10 April 2023 by S.I. No. 163 of 2023.
34. Law reform report Law Reform Commission. Consultation Paper: Compensating Victims of Crime, LRC CP 67-2022. Records that the prison officers scheme "operates on different terms and compensates prison officers only".
35. Official guidance European e-Justice Portal. If my claim is to be considered in this country – Ireland. Page maintained by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, last updated 29 July 2024. Records the €500 minimum, that there is currently no maximum level of award, and the availability of interim awards.
36. Official guidance Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Access to compensation in cross-border cases. gov.ie, on Council Directive 2004/80/EC.
37. News report Irish Examiner. Report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal Annual Report 2024, 29 September 2025. Gives an average of €49,335 per general scheme award, up from €27,838 in 2023, and €31,310 per prison officers scheme award.
38. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 53979, 13 September 2023. gov.ie. Quotes the provocation and part-responsibility provision, Paragraph 12 under the current numbering.
39. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision F/53765, 28 February 2023, and Decision F/53762, 13 February 2024. gov.ie. Fatal awards showing apportionment of the mental distress figure, a 50 per cent reduction, a funeral account discharged by a third party and therefore not awarded, a sum held in trust for a minor, and the footnoted basis in section 49(1A) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 and S.I. No. 6 of 2014.
40. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 53698, 28 January 2024. gov.ie. Application refused where the Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence that an injury had been sustained.
41. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Instruction 1: Three month deadline for acceptance of Tribunal decision, 10 December 2020. gov.ie. Sets a three-month period, running from the date of the Tribunal's letter communicating the decision, for accepting or appealing a first-instance decision, after which the file is closed and archived. The Tribunal "may extend these deadlines for acceptance in exceptional circumstances", which "must have been communicated to the Tribunal in writing when they first arose". Issued under Paragraph 20, renumbered Paragraph 19 on 20 April 2021.
42. News report Mary Carolan. Violent crime victims to receive increased State compensation after European court ruling. The Irish Times, 20 February 2026. Reports that the applicant who received €645 from the Tribunal settled with the State for approximately €60,000.
43. News report Mary Carolan. Crime victims sue State for damages amid delay in introducing new compensation scheme. The Irish Times, 3 April 2026. Reports seven High Court actions against the Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General.
44. Legislation Law Reform Commission. Civil Liability Act 1961, section 49 (Revised Acts), and Law Society of Ireland, Increase in limit for solatium. The maximum is set by section 49(1)(b); S.I. No. 6 of 2014 raised it from €25,394.76 to €35,000 for deaths occurring on or after 11 January 2014.
45. Official guidance Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Annual Report 2024. gov.ie, published 26 September 2025. The primary source for the 2024 award and application figures reported second-hand elsewhere on this page.
46. Tribunal decision Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. Decision 51760, 16 August 2022. gov.ie. Confirms that current Paragraph 22 is the Garda-reporting provision and that current Paragraph 20 was formerly Paragraph 21. The gov.ie decisions collection gives no pre-2021 number for Paragraph 22, so none is stated on this page.

Legal costs. Section 149 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 prohibits a legal practitioner from charging legal costs as a specified percentage or proportion of damages payable to a client, from setting counsel's fees as a specified proportion of other legal costs, and from deducting any amount from a client's damages without that client's prior written agreement. This firm does not charge on any such basis. Under section 150 of the same Act you are entitled to a written notice of legal costs when you give instructions.

The Scheme itself is published by the Department as a downloadable document rather than as a web page. Scheme wording quoted on this page is taken from the Tribunal's own published decisions, which reproduce Scheme paragraphs verbatim. Where a paragraph number or figure is decisive to an application, it should be confirmed against the current Scheme document.

Back to top