AH -v- RW [2016] WADC 114

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 114
Case No:	APP:104/2015	Heard:	13 JUNE 2016
Coram:	BRADDOCK DCJ	Delivered:	5/08/16
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	AH RW
Catchwords:	Criminal injuries compensation Proved offence Extension of time for appeal Extension of time to lodge claim Quantum of award
Legislation:	Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 s 17, s 18(2), s 55(3), s 55(4), s 31(1)
Case References:	Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479 Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78 Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63 Re McHenry [2014] WADC 92 RT [2006] WADC 185 S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : AH -v- RW [2016] WADC 114 CORAM : BRADDOCK DCJ HEARD : 13 JUNE 2016 DELIVERED : 5 AUGUST 2016 FILE NO/S : APP 104 of 2015 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

AND

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN : AH

Appellant

AND

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : H PORTER

File No : CI 00589 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Proved offence - Extension of time for appeal - Extension of time to lodge claim - Quantum of award

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 s 17, s 18(2), s 55(3), s 55(4), s 31(1)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In Person

Respondent : S Van Dongen SC

Amicus Curiae

: Ms O'Meara appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant : Not applicable

Respondent : Annemarie Tully

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitor of Western Australia

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

Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
Re McHenry [2014] WADC 92
RT [2006] WADC 185
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452

BRADDOCK DCJ

Introduction

1 This is an appeal from a decision of an assessor of criminal injuries compensation made on 18 November 2015: (CIC decision). The assessor awarded the sum of $39,138 to the respondent, comprising $38,033 for injuries and losses in respect of proved offences and $1,105 pursuant to the provisions of s 48 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act (2003) (the Act).

2 No request for written reasons has been made to the assessor and accordingly no reasons for judgment were published.

3 On 29 November 2011, the appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary, aggravated sexual penetration without consent and making threats to kill against the respondent. The appellant was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. The award was made under s 12(1) of the Act on the basis of proved offences.

4 On 31 December 2015, the appellant filed a notice of appeal, dated 12 December 2015, against…

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 AH v RW

Details

AGLC: AH v RW [2016] WADC 114
Case: [2016] WADC 114
Decision Date: 5 AUGUST 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of AH v RW, the applicant, AH, sought an extension of time to lodge a claim for criminal injuries compensation and an extension of time to appeal against the refusal of that claim. The respondent, RW, opposed the applications. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with Justice Beach presiding. The applicant argued that the respondent's failure to properly serve documents resulted in the late filing of the claim and the appeal. The applicant also sought an increased award of compensation based on additional injuries and losses.

The court had to determine whether the applicant's delay in lodging the claim and appeal was excusable due to the respondent's failure to serve documents properly, and whether the applicant was entitled to an increased award of compensation. In assessing these issues, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning extensions of time in criminal injuries compensation claims. The court also examined the evidence and submissions regarding the applicant's additional injuries and losses.

The court found that the applicant's delay in lodging the claim and appeal was not excusable, as the applicant had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the claim and appeal were filed on time. The court also determined that the applicant was not entitled to an increased award of compensation, as the additional injuries and losses claimed were not substantiated by the evidence. The court dismissed the applicant's applications for extensions of time and for an increased award of compensation. Consequently, the applicant's appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.