Australian Capital Territory v Tuita

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Australian Capital Territory v Tuita

Citation:

[2017] ACTMC 7

Hearing Date(s):

17 August 2016

DecisionDate:

8 February 2017

Before:

Magistrate Morrison

Decision: 

See [11] – [13]

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords: 

CIVIL LAW – objection to confirmation of provisional restitution order under Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT)

Legislation Cited:

Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT), ss 54, 59

Cases Cited:

Australian Capital Territory v Shaor [2017] ACTMC 1

Parties:

Australian Capital Territory (Applicant)
Sioeli Tuita (Objector)

Representation:

Counsel
Ms J Liang (Applicant)
Mr M Toole (Objector)

Solicitors
ACT Government Solicitor (Applicant)
Legal Aid ACT (Objector)

File Number:

AP 75 of 2015

MAGISTRATE MORRISON:

1. On 15 October 2015 the Deputy Registrar of this Court made a provisional order under s54 of the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT) (“Current Act”) requiring Sioeli Tuita to pay the Territory the sum of $45,000.00. Mr Tuita filed a notice of objection to that order.

2. Mr Tuita filed two affidavits in support of his objection.  There was no objection to the contents of them at the hearing.  I also permitted Mr Tuita to put into evidence a letter he had written for presentation to the Court.  It became Exhibit A.  Mr Tuita was not required for cross examination and no other evidence was received at the hearing.

3. In my reasons for decision in the matter of Australian Capital Territory v Shaor [2017] ACTMC 1 published on 8 February 2017 I set out my conclusions on some of the decision making criteria to be applied in dealing with objections to provisional orders. I rely upon the conclusions reached on decision making criteria in those reasons without repeating them here.

4. In that decision I also dealt with the effect of the repeal of the Current Act.

5. Mr Tuita was at the time of hearing the objection serving a term of imprisonment for an offence of sexual intercourse without consent.  His non-parole period has recently expired and it may be that he has now been released on parole.  The balance term is 15 months.

6. The evidence establishes that the Objector has no means to pay any amount towards compensation recovery during the period of his incarceration.  So much is accepted by the Territory.  The submissions made by the Territory are to the effect that the Objector is a young man and that he is likely to have improved financial capacity upon his release.

7. The Objector’s evidence, and it is supported by that of his father, includes reference to his mother having suffered a stroke and the need for him to assist his father in care for his mother. The family’s position is a very unfortunate one, but the evidence does not go so far as to suggest that Mr Tuita would be unable to obtain employment because of the need to help his father in that role. 

8. As to the Objector’s future prospects, as I understand the evidence, he…