Bennetts v Smith - [2022] WADC 32

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   BENNETTS -v- SMITH [2022] WADC 32
CORAM:   GILLAN DCJ
HEARD:   23 MARCH 2022
DELIVERED          :   8 APRIL 2022
FILE NO/S:   APP 22 of 2021
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   LUKE EDWARD BENNETTS
Appellant
AND
DEANNE LOUISE VALDA SMITH
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CIC 157 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Proved offence - Admission of additional evidence - Conduct of the respondent

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982 (WA)
Criminal Code
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal not allowed
Award of the Assessor confirmed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr Z R Clifford on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

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

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

Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70
Humphry v The Queen [2003] WASCA 53
Hutchings v Lachlan [2012] WADC 89
McDavitt v McDavitt [2013] WADC 22
Re Richardson [2009] WADC 93
Re Tilbery [2010] WADC 46
Robertson v Hopwood [2018] WADC 66
Sunderland [2011] WADC 97
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
West v Suzuka [1964] WAR 112
Wilson v Dobra (1955) 57 WALR 95

GILLAN DCJ:

In the relevant period, including between April 2017 and July 2017, the appellant, Mr Bennetts, and the respondent, Ms Smith were in a relationship and were living together in a house in Stirling.
On 10 April 2017 Mr Bennetts entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court at Perth on his plea of guilty to the offence of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm (AAOBH).[1] The offence date was 9 April 2017. The victim was Ms Smith.
[1] The transcript of 10 April 2017 is not before the court. Letter from OCIC to Mr Bennetts dated 15 June 2019 refers to the conviction date as being 10 April 2017. The transcript of an appearance in the Magistrates Court in Perth on 25 June 2017 with respect to the breach of bail charge refers to an earlier plea of guilty and an application to set aside a plea. The transcript of the sentencing hearing on 16 August 2017 similarly refers to an application to set aside the plea not being pursued and the matter then proceeded to sentence.
From 21 June 2017 Mr Bennetts was on bail for the AAOBH on conditions that included protective bail conditions not to be within 20 m of Ms Smith.
On 24 June 2017 Mr Bennetts and Ms Smith were in a car in Jurien Bay. Mr Bennetts was arrested and brought before the Magistrates Court on 25 June 2017 at which time he was convicted…

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 Bennetts v Smith

Details

AGLC: Bennetts v Smith [2022] WADC 32
Case: [2022] WADC 32
Decision Date: 8 APRIL 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bennetts v Smith, the respondent, Bennetts, sought an appeal against the decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal which rejected his claim for compensation. The respondent had been convicted of a serious crime and was seeking compensation for injuries sustained during his arrest and subsequent detention. The primary judge was required to determine whether the tribunal had erred in its decision and whether additional evidence should be admitted.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal had correctly applied the statutory criteria for compensation, and if the respondent's conduct warranted the admission of additional evidence. The court examined whether the tribunal's decision was open on the evidence before it, and if the respondent's delay in providing additional evidence was justified. The court also needed to consider the impact of the respondent's conduct on the fairness of the proceedings.

The court found that the tribunal's decision was not open on the evidence, as it had not adequately considered the statutory criteria for compensation. The court held that the respondent's conduct did not warrant the admission of additional evidence, as it did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the need for parties to act promptly and diligently in providing evidence. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's claim for compensation was rejected.

Orders