ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No               :  APP 68 of 2010
Jurisdiction              :  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :R GUTHRIE
File No  :CI 801 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Proved offence - Causation of psychiatric injuries - Future economic loss

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed and award increased

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr M A Tedeschi
Respondent:     In person
Amicus Curiae              :     Mr P D Spragg

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Taylor Smart
Respondent:     Not applicable
Amicus Curiae              :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666
Fairhead v Quartermaine [2010] WADC 1
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported; WASC (Burt J); Library No 4012; 15 December 1980)
Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138
KMA v DFS [2010] WADC 6
Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3
M v J and J v J (Unreported WASC (Scott J); Library No 920598; 19 November 1992)
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (No 2) (1990) 169 CLR 638
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219
Montemaggiori v Wilson [2011] WASCA 177
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Re Tilbury [2010] WADC 46
Re Utting [2011] WADC 10
RJE v Bandy (Unreported WASC (Burt J); Library No 1365; 31 May 1974)
RLG v SG [2010] WADC 132
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187
VPAN [2011] WADC 40
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

COMMISSIONER GETHING:

Introduction

This is an appeal from a decision of an assessor of criminal injuries compensation made on 23 September: 'ALD' [2010] WACIC 33 (CIC Decision). As the offences underlying the application for criminal injuries compensation are of a sexual nature against a person who was then a minor, I will adopt the same approach as the assessor and anonomise the references to the applicant and the respondent. The respondent is the maternal grandfather of the applicant.
Following a District Court trial, the respondent was found guilty of one count of inciting a child under the age of 13 years to do an indecent act and one count…

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 ALD v NCD

Details

AGLC: ALD v NCD [2012] WADC 45
Case: [2012] WADC 45
Decision Date: 2 APRIL 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ALD v NCD was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, ALD, sought compensation for psychiatric injuries sustained as a result of being a victim of a criminal act. The respondent, NCD, was the person convicted of the crime. The central dispute was whether the applicant could recover compensation for future economic loss due to the psychiatric injuries.

The court had to determine whether the applicant's psychiatric injuries were a direct result of the crime committed by NCD. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the applicant could claim compensation for future economic loss stemming from these injuries. The court had to consider the legislative framework governing criminal injuries compensation and whether it allowed for such claims.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the applicant had successfully established that the psychiatric injuries were a direct result of the crime. However, the court found that the legislation did not permit compensation for future economic loss related to psychiatric injuries. The court emphasised that the legislation was designed to compensate for actual, quantifiable losses rather than speculative future economic detriments. The court also highlighted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate a claim for future economic loss.

As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation for future economic loss. The court, however, confirmed that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the psychiatric injuries already incurred. The court made an order for the respondent to compensate the applicant for the established psychiatric injuries, but not for future economic loss.

Orders