Judge criticises cost of compensating injured gardaí

A High Court judge has criticised the system for compensating gardaí for minor injuries, saying a €5,000 award could cost the taxpayer up to €20,000 due to legal costs.

Mr Justice Michael Twomey queried why such cases were assessed in the High Court rather than in lower courts.

He said it would cost an estimated €13.6 million to assess the existing 682 minor injury Garda compensation cases before the courts, and about 180 new cases were being added each year.

The existing system could be costing the State €100,000 a week and it could not be justified, he added.

The system gave lawyers a “perverse” financial incentive not to try and settle minor claims because settlement would mean they would lose their guaranteed payment for a court hearing. If the system was changed on lines suggested by him, there could be possible savings of millions, he said.

He made the comments in a judgment on Monday awarding €5,000 for a hand injury suffered by Garda Niall Kampff and setting out principles governing awards for injuries suffered by gardaí.

Garda Kampff bruised his hand against shelves while trying to arrest a suspect in September 2013, was treated with anti-inflammatories, his arm was strapped and put in a sling and he was on sick leave for five days. His lawyers had urged the judge to award about €21,700 for the injury and, in doing so, relied on the Book of Quantum which sets out guidelines for awards in civilian personal injury cases.

Mr Justice Twomey said he did not consider that awarding anything close to that sum in this case could be justified for “what was in essence bruising to the hand”. There was no fracture, the garda did not require any pain medication or physiotherapy and he had fully recovered, the judge said.

He ruled the appropriate compensation was €5,000 and also noted special damages for medical expenses had been agreed at €1,185.

In his judgment, the judge said the court is obliged simply to “have regard to” the Book of Quantum in civilian personal injury cases but not in Garda compensation cases.

The Book of Quantum is not binding but the courts are obliged to follow the binding principles for assessing damages for personal injuries as approved by the Supreme Court, he said.

The principles applicable to calculating general damages appropriate for personal injury include the relevance of average national earnings of about €45,611 annually; the need for personal injury awards to be proportionate to the €450,000 cap on general damages for pain and suffering for catastrophic injury such as quadriplegia; and the effect of the downwards recalibration by the Court of Appeal of general damages for personal injuries.

Risk their lives

The judge stressed it is “beyond question” gardaí are entitled to be compensated for their injuries and he was struck by the bravery of gardaí who on a daily basis risk their lives so members of the public can live peaceful lives. Thankfully, the vast majority of claims before the court relate to minor injuries, he said.

He considered certain principles apply to Garda compensation cases which, unlike other cases seeking damages for minor injuries, are heard in the High Court rather than the District or Circuit Court, leading to the costs being multiples of the award in damages. There was also no incentive for Garda compensation cases to be settled without the expense of a court hearing, he said.

Since he took over the Garda compensation list at the start of this year, the settlement rate was about 1 per cent when it was about 90 per cent in civilian cases. Garda compensation cases are also not subject to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board with the effect they may only be processed in the High Court at considerable expense, he said.

This is the fifth case Garda Kampff has made under the Garda Compensation Acts, he said. The first claim arose from a kick to his hand leading to a fracture, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in relation to a bite injury from one incident in 1993. The second claim, in 1995, related to a road traffic accident at work and resulted in his suffering severe anxiety thereafter. The third claim related to facial abrasions and conjuctivitis from a road traffic accident at work in 1996, and the fourth claim related to a soft tissue injury to his scrotum in 1997.