Arnold v Crimes Compensation Tribunal

The applicant, Arnold, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Crimes Compensation Tribunal. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for compensation as a victim of child incest, specifically relating to the extension of limitation periods for such claims. The applicant argued for a particular judicial approach to these limitations, drawing parallels with jurisprudence from Canada and the United States concerning what is known as "post-incest syndrome."

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper judicial approach to extending limitation periods for compensation claims by child incest victims. This involved determining when the cause of action for such claims should be considered to have arisen, particularly in light of the psychological impact of incest and the delayed awareness of the victim regarding the nature of the wrong and its causal link to their suffering. The applicant contended that the injury should not be deemed to have occurred at the time of the events or upon reaching majority, but rather when the victim gained a substantial awareness of the wrong, its criminal nature, and its connection to their subsequent psychological disorders.

The applicant's argument, as presented to the High Court, relied heavily on a decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in *KM v HM*. This decision analysed the nature of incest and its resulting injuries, proposing that a cause of action should only arise when the victim possesses a substantial awareness that a wrong has been committed by the perpetrator, rather than self-blame, and is aware of the connection between their injury and the crime. The Canadian court held that this awareness often emerges during therapy or counselling in adulthood, through recall of events and coping with traumatic disorders. The applicant sought to translate this principle to the interpretation of the relevant legislation concerning the extension of time for compensation claims, arguing that delay should not be considered to have run until such awareness and appreciation of the criminal wrong and its causal link had occurred.