BOSCH -v- LOEPER [1999] WASC 255
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASC 255 | |
| Case No: | MCS:62/1999 | 25 NOVEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | SCOTT J | 15/12/99 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Applicant awarded maximum allowable under the Act | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ERIC EUGENE BOSCH PETER JOHN LOEPER |
Catchwords: | Application for compensation under provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1970 Maximum award available under the Act Indecent dealings with child under the age of 14 years |
Legislation: | Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1970 |
Case References: | BMW v RLW, unreported; SCt of WA (Kennedy J); Library No 4614; 23 August 1995 KLH v Dennison, unreported; SCt of WA (Burt CJ); Library No 5172; 6 December 1983 M v J, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 920598; 19 November 1992 P v C, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920055; 23 January 1992 A v D (19911 WAR 481 The Applicant v Larkin, Withnell and Wilkinson [1976] WAR 199 B v S, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 950223; 10 May 1995 B v W (1989) 6 SR(WA) 79 Bonovich v Radovanovic [1981] WAR 291 Fagan v The Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666 Glover v Van Den Ancker, unreported; DCt of WA (Muller DCJ); Library No 4962; 20 June 1996 Maher, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 5124; 1996 MLB v Wilkinson, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 4738; 1982 O v J, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallwork J); Library No 920027; 13 February 1992 Patorniti v Silvestro, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970325; 1997 R v Fraser (1975) 2 NSWLR 521 R vWright [1971] Qd R 153 RJE v Bandy, unreported; SCt of WA (Burt CJ); Library No 5489; 31 May 1974 S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452 Sideris v Censori [1983] WAR 17 Wootton, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 4172; 1981 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Applicant
AND
PETER JOHN LOEPER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Application for compensation under provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1970 - Maximum award available under the Act - Indecent dealings with child under the age of 14 years
Legislation:
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1970
Result:
Applicant awarded maximum allowable under the Act
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr J J Scudds
Respondent : Mr R F C Ioppolo
Solicitors:
Applicant : J J Scudds & Associates
Respondent : State Crown Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
BMW v RLW, unreported; SCt of WA (Kennedy J); Library No 4614; 23 August 1995
KLH v Dennison, unreported; SCt of WA (Burt CJ); Library No 5172; 6 December 1983
M v J, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 920598; 19 November 1992
P v C, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No…
Continue reading Bosch v Loeper
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bosch v Loeper [1999] WASC 255
- Case
- [1999] WASC 255
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Western Australia heard an application by Eric Eugene Bosch against Peter John Loeper under the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1970. The respondent, Loeper, had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of indecent dealings with a child under 14 years, including acts against the applicant Bosch between 1979 and 1981. Bosch sought compensation for the severe psychological and physical harm caused by these acts, as evidenced by various medical reports detailing long-term effects such as depression, anxiety, and impaired relationships.
The court needed to determine whether Bosch was entitled to the maximum compensation allowable under the Act, considering the nature and impact of the crimes. The statutory maximum compensation for such offences was either $7,500 or $30,000. The court examined the reports and testimonies to assess Bosch's damages and whether they warranted the maximum award. Legal precedents indicated that while the maximum compensation was a jurisdictional limit, it was not reserved only for the worst cases. Instead, compensation should be assessed based on ordinary tortious principles, and if the calculated damages exceeded the statutory maximum, the maximum should be awarded.
Scott J concluded that Bosch had demonstrated significant and lasting harm from Loeper's conduct, which warranted the maximum allowable compensation. The court awarded Bosch $30,000, acknowledging that this amount was well below what Bosch's actual damages might warrant on tortious principles, considering factors such as the delay in the case coming to light and the lack of provision for inflation in the compensation. The court also noted that the award did not cover additional out-of-pocket expenses Bosch had incurred. The decision was made with the understanding that compensation was part of Bosch's healing process and a recognition of the serious impact of childhood sexual abuse.
The court needed to determine whether Bosch was entitled to the maximum compensation allowable under the Act, considering the nature and impact of the crimes. The statutory maximum compensation for such offences was either $7,500 or $30,000. The court examined the reports and testimonies to assess Bosch's damages and whether they warranted the maximum award. Legal precedents indicated that while the maximum compensation was a jurisdictional limit, it was not reserved only for the worst cases. Instead, compensation should be assessed based on ordinary tortious principles, and if the calculated damages exceeded the statutory maximum, the maximum should be awarded.
Scott J concluded that Bosch had demonstrated significant and lasting harm from Loeper's conduct, which warranted the maximum allowable compensation. The court awarded Bosch $30,000, acknowledging that this amount was well below what Bosch's actual damages might warrant on tortious principles, considering factors such as the delay in the case coming to light and the lack of provision for inflation in the compensation. The court also noted that the award did not cover additional out-of-pocket expenses Bosch had incurred. The decision was made with the understanding that compensation was part of Bosch's healing process and a recognition of the serious impact of childhood sexual abuse.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.