A MAN who claims his life was shattered from the time he tried, to prevent the theft of his car 12 years ago, yesterday began a High Court challenge against a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal to award him £100,000.
Mr Eamonn Gavin lives in rented accommodation at Orwell Park Green, Templeogue, Dublin. He was carried on the bonnet of his car when it was being stolen outside his home in Firhouse in February 1984.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Mr Gavin, quoted a Garda report submitted to the director of the tribunal which stated: "If there was ever a case which could receive favourable consideration, this is one such case." The report referred to alleged malicious damage, threats, obscene letters and the intimidation of Mr Gavin in the intervening years.
Mr Hardiman also quoted a decision of the compensation tribunal when it awarded Mr Gavin £100,009 that he was "the victim of a vicious and orchestrated campaign of intimidation by reason of his fulfilment of his civic duty in attending court and giving evidence".
Mr Gavin claimed he did not receive reasonable compensation; that he was entitled to the reasons for the tribunal's decision and that there was a failure to comply with the principles of natural and constitutional justice.
The State claims the tribunal is not obliged to give reasons for its decisions and its decision was not unreasonable, unfair or biased.
Mr David Doyle, solicitor for Mr Gavin, in an affidavit, was told Mr Gavin had been a computer sales executive at the time of the car theft. As a result of assaults, threats, obscene and hate telephone calls, vandalism of his cars and intimidation over a number of years, he became depressed, suffered stress with alcohol dependence and lost his job.
Despite medical treatment, he had been unable to obtain gainful employment since, had lost his family home, his company cars and benefits. He claimed loss of earnings between 1986 and 1994 were £166,000, future loss of earnings at £262,000; loss of pension £29,000 and loss of capital value of the family home at £90,000, making a total of almost £547,000.
Ms Catherine Byrne, secretary of the tribunal, in an affidavit, said Mr Gavin had been paid £2,035 compensation by the tribunal in September 1985, in respect of his injuries arising from the theft of his car in 1984.
He made five claims arising from incidents after the car theft. He was awarded £100,000. The decision was upheld on appeal 19 a three-member tribunal. The tribunal was not satisfied that the entire of the personal injury and consequent loss and damage was attributable to the incidents set out in Mr Gavin's applications.
The tribunal, said Ms Byrne, came to the conclusion that Mr Gavin's emotional and psychological difficulties were caused, or contributed to by factors which included the original theft of his car and his traumatic involvement in that theft, the resulting court cases and publicity, the damage to his property, threats made to him and the fact that one of the persons convicted of the theft escaped from custody and was free for a considerable time.
The hearing, before Miss Justice Carroll, continues today.