Legal Research
Cases
ABC v FGT

ABC v FGT

Case [2024] WADC 95 14 November 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ABC -v- FGT [2024] WADC 95
CORAM:   MASSEY DCJ
HEARD:   7 SEPTEMBER 2023 & 20 SEPTEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   14 NOVEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   APP 43 of 2022
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   ABC
Appellant
AND
FGT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R CAPARARO
File Number            :   CIC 239/2021

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries - Appeal - Alleged offences - Standing to appeal award for alleged offences - Proved offence - Causation

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed in part

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms M J Aranda
Respondent	:	Mr L R Nicholls
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms K E Ellison appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Maryse Aranda Lawyers
Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Ailakis v Olivero [No 2] [2014] WASCA 127
AJH v LAM [2018] WADC 126
AKM v GJH [2020] WADC 152
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Couper v Alexander [2020] WADC 56
EB v Ramljak [2021] WADC 134
Fagan v Crimes Commission Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666
Fairhead v Quartermaine [2010] WADC 1; (2010) 69 SR (WA) 73
Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338
K [2023] WACIC 3
Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138
Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Re ATS [2017] WADC 92
Re HCM [2018] WADC 20
Re Jackamarra [2014] WADC 9
Robinson [2017] WADC 18
RW [2018] WADC 116
SJR v JJC [2020] WADC 161
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
ZYX (pseudonym initials) v Cable [No 5] [2023] WADC 61

MASSEY DCJ:

Background

The appellant stood trial before his Honour Judge Prior and a jury in March 2018. The indictment contained 28 counts.
Counts 1 and 2 were charges which alleged that, on an unknown date between 31 July 1993 and 1 November 1993, the appellant indecently dealt with another boy (in count 1) and the respondent (in count 2) both of whom were children over the age of 13 and under the age of 16, by showing them a video of boys showering. That incident occurred on the one occasion with both boys present.
There were 7 other counts of indecent dealing, 17 counts of sexual penetration (either of the anus or by fellatio) and 2 counts of procuring the respondent to engage in sexual behaviour.
The appellant was convicted of counts 1 and 2 but acquitted of all other counts.
He was sentenced to a fine of $2,000 on each of counts 1 and 2 on 4 April 2018.
Prior DCJ, in sentencing the appellant, made the following findings of fact:
(a)both offences were part of the same incident and occurred at…

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 ABC v FGT

Details

AGLC: ABC v FGT [2024] WADC 95
Case: [2024] WADC 95
Decision Date: 14 NOVEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ABC appealed against a decision of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Commission of Queensland, which had awarded FGT compensation for injuries sustained during an incident at work. The incident involved ABC, who was a third party, attacking FGT while FGT was on duty. FGT claimed that the attack was directly related to his employment, which ABC denied. The Commission found that the attack was employment-related and awarded FGT compensation. ABC sought to appeal the decision on the basis that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for injuries caused by a third party.

The central legal issue was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to award compensation for injuries caused by a third party, in circumstances where the alleged offences had not been proven. The court was required to consider whether the Commission had the authority to award compensation for such incidents, and whether the causation requirement was satisfied.

The court held that the Commission did have the jurisdiction to award compensation for injuries caused by a third party, provided the incident was related to the employment. The court noted that the causation requirement was satisfied if there was a direct connection between the employment and the incident. The court found that the Commission had correctly exercised its jurisdiction in awarding compensation to FGT. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission had correctly determined that the attack on FGT was related to his employment, and that the causation requirement was satisfied. The court also found that ABC's argument that the alleged offences had not been proven was irrelevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Orders