Attorney-General v B

The Attorney-General appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against a decision of a single judge who had awarded criminal injuries compensation to B. The dispute concerned whether the facts necessary to establish B's entitlement to compensation sufficiently appeared from the evidence and material before the court.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the single judge had erred in finding that the facts supporting B's claim for compensation were sufficiently established by the evidence presented. This involved considering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by B and the causal link between those injuries and the criminal act alleged.

The Full Court reasoned that the evidence before the single judge, including medical reports and B's own testimony, was sufficient to establish the necessary facts for an award of criminal injuries compensation. The court applied the principles governing the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in criminal injuries compensation claims, holding that the single judge had not made an error of law in their assessment. The appeal was therefore dismissed.