Courts

High Court dismisses challenge to decision refusing compensation to children of man shot dead

Convictions and conduct made it ‘inappropriate’ to compensate victim, and by extension his children, said judge

Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said in the High Court that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal was correct in its decisions to refuse to compensate.
Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said in the High Court that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal was correct in its decisions to refuse to compensate.
Aodhan O'Faolain
Thu Mar 14 2024 - 20:41

The High Court has dismissed a challenge brought against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal’s refusal to compensate the children of a man who was shot dead in 2005.

The application was brought by Eddie Cunningham Cummins, and Erica Cunningham Cummins, the two children of Eddie Cummins Snr.

Mr Cummins Snr, who had more than 20 convictions for offences including assault and possession of drugs for sale and supply, was shot dead outside his home in Ballincollig, Co Cork on August 13th, 2005. A Garda investigation into the killing revealed that Mr Cummins was shot four times at close range in an incident believed to have been “drug related”.

At the time of Mr Cummins’s killing, his son was just 19 months old. His daughter was born several months after his death.

READ MORE

Arising out of his killing, his children, through their mother and the victim’s partner Michelle Cunningham, applied in 2011 to the tribunal, which is a State body that compensates the victims of violent crime. They subsequently brought a High Court judicial review action challenging the tribunal’s refusal of their application for payment under the scheme.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the tribunal was “correct in its decisions” to refuse to compensate.

The criminal convictions and conduct of their father made it “inappropriate to compensate him,” and by extension his children, the court said

The judge said that she wished to extend her sympathy to the “blameless” children of this victim, who “died in a cowardly and heartless act”.

However, the court “could not agree that the dependants of a criminal who probably died as a result of his criminality should be compensated by the State for that injury to him”.

The judge said she wanted to make it clear that she was not saying that the deceased “deserved what he got”. But in this case, the principle that those who engage in crime do so knowing the risks is important, she said.

It was “not a disproportionate or discriminatory measure” to provide that the dependants of the deceased are “not entitled to compensation from the taxpayer if that person dies as a result of their criminality”.

The paying of compensation would “not be in keeping with the State’s policy of preventing crime and deterring people from committing crime”, the judge added.

She noted that while a file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions on the killing, nobody has ever been prosecuted nor convicted of his murder.

In 2021, the tribunal rejected the 2011 applications for compensation. It said that the applications were made outside of the required time limit, of two years and three months after the violent incident, and because Mr Cummins Snr had 27 previous convictions.

It also held that, as the killing had “all the hallmarks of a gangland drugs killing”, his children are not entitled to avail of the scheme.

Under article 13 of the scheme, compensation will not be paid where the tribunal is satisfied that the victim’s conduct is such that it is inappropriate that they receive an award, the judge said.

The applicants internally appealed that initial refusal. They agued in their appeal that article 13 was not applicable in these cases. They also argued the children are entirely innocent of anything their father may have done.

In July 2022 the tribunal dismissed their appeal.

The applicants, from Heron’s Wood, Carrigaline, Co Cork, brought proceedings against both the tribunal and the Minister for Justice over the appeal decision. They sought various reliefs including an order quashing the tribunal’s decision.

The respondents opposed the application.