The couple's Lawyer Mr. Saul Froomkin is appealing a decision made last year by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The board had refused to hear their application because it was made too late.

Victims of crimes have one year within which to file applications for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Act.

Mr. Froomkin charged the decision rendered by the board was improper. He said the board had the discretion to allow an outdated application provided there were good reasons.

If ever there was a case which justified extending the time limit, it was this "horrendous'' case, he argued.

He said two psychiatrists had given evidence that the woman was incapable in the year after the crime of making an application for damages. Their evidence had not been contested by the board, he said.

The Appeal Judges heard the board's main reason for refusing to hear the application was that it would "open the floodgates'' to anyone else who had missed the deadline.

But Mr. Froomkin argued the board had failed to recognise that the other applicants would also have to have good reason for seeking an extension.

The lawyer asked the Appeal Judges to quash the board's decision and order the board to hear the application.

In his brief submission, Crown Counsel Mr. Diarmuid Doorly, acting on behalf of the board, said the husband had not needed his wife's consent to apply for compensation, therefore, should have gone ahead.

The three Appeal Judges heard an application was not made until several years after the crime occurred because of the woman's mental state.

Mr. Froomkin said the husband had not wanted to file an application on her behalf without her consent or knowledge.

However, when her condition improved slightly, she was capable of discussing the case without breaking down. She agreed to allow her husband to file for damages on her behalf, but on condition her name would not be disclosed and she would not be required to appear before the board.

In Court yesterday Mr. Froomkin asked the Appeal Judges to make a ruling barring the Press from printing the woman's name in the event it was said in open court. He also asked that the Press be barred from printing any facts relating to the offence against her for fear it would identify her.

Acting Court of Appeal president the Hon. Mr. Justice da Costa agreed to make the two rulings, saying he was entitled to under the Criminal Injuries Act.