AA v ARW

Case [2020] WADC 131 30 September 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   AA -v- ARW [2020] WADC 131
CORAM:   GETHING DCJ
HEARD:   30 SEPTEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   30 SEPTEMBER 2020
PUBLISHED           :   5 OCTOBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   APP 13 of 2020
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   AA
Appellant
AND
ARW
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CIC 3069/2017

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Whether offender can assert that the proven offence the foundation of the claim of compensation was wrongly decided

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA), s 9, s 12, s 30

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Ms V E Long-Droppert
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr F Cardell-Oliver appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Albert Wolff Chambers
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

AJA v PSS [2002] WADC 194
ALD v NCD [2012] WADC 45
B v B [2004] WASC 6
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27; (1992) 176 CLR 408
Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
Bothma v Hildebrand [2019] WADC 92
CME [2018] WADC 69
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported, WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980)
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Houlahan v Pitchen [2009] WASCA 104
KBR v ADM [2018] WADC 120
Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3
M R & R C Smith Pty Ltd t/as Ultratune (Osborne Park) v Wyatt [No 2] [2012] WASCA 110
M v J and J v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
Mickelberg v The Director of the Perth Mint [1986] WAR 365
Nagel v Tahere [2020] WADC 110
Nurovic v Nurovic [2019] WADC 28
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Pym v Richardson [2018] WADC 156
RJE v Bandy (Unreported, WASC, Library No 1365, 31 May 1974)
Robinson [2017] WADC 18
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
Stocker v Loeper [2001] WASC 176
T v Curnuck [2004] WASC 139
Townend v McAlindon [2017] WADC 63
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
Winiarczyk v Tsirigotis [2011] WASCA 97

GETHING DCJ:

Overview

On 11 September 2015 the Appellant was convicted in this court of one count of carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 13 years, two counts of attempted carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 13 years and four counts of indecent dealing with a child under the age of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AA v ARW

Details

AGLC: AA v ARW [2020] WADC 131
Case: [2020] WADC 131
Decision Date: 30 SEPTEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of AA v ARW, the appellant, AA, sought to appeal the decision of the Primary Judge, which dismissed the respondent's, ARW's, claim for criminal injuries compensation. The basis of the appeal was that the decision to deny compensation was predicated on the finding that the crime, for which compensation was sought, did not exist. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the offender could challenge the validity of the offence on which the claim for compensation was founded. The court needed to determine if there was an error in the Primary Judge's decision to deny compensation based on the premise that the crime in question was not validly decided. The court was also required to consider whether the respondent had demonstrated that they had suffered harm as a result of the alleged crime, and whether this harm was directly attributable to the criminal act.

The court, in its decision, held that the offender cannot contest the validity of the offence upon which the claim for compensation is based. The court found that the Primary Judge correctly concluded that the respondent's claim for compensation was dependent on the existence of the crime, and that the decision to deny compensation was based on the finding that the crime did not occur. The court also noted that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they had suffered harm as a result of the alleged crime. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Primary Judge's decision. The court's decision clarifies that an offender cannot challenge the validity of the offence upon which the claim for compensation is based, and that the respondent must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they have suffered harm as a result of the alleged crime.

Orders