BT v BT - [2014] WADC 166

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BT -v- BT [2014] WADC 166

CORAM: WAGER DCJ

HEARD: 1 DECEMBER 2014

DELIVERED : 5 DECEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: APP 85 of 2014

BETWEEN: BT
Appellant
AND
BT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No               :  APP 85 of 2014
Jurisdiction              :  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :H C PORTER
File No  :CI 001967 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal by offender against award - Whether award for economic loss should be made - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     In person
Respondent:     No appearance
Amicus Curiae                   :    Mr J M Carroll appeared on behalf of Chief Executiver Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

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

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

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
MW v CW [2001] WADC 234

WAGER DCJ: This is an appeal by the appellant offender against a decision of the chief assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation made on 6 August 2014 awarding the respondent the sum of $34,702 pursuant to s 30 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (the Act). The award was made in respect of the following:
(i)Section 16(1)(b) of the Act in respect of injuries and losses suffered by the respondent as a consequence of the appellant injuring her on 3 April 2011 at Atwell for which incident he was charged with an offence of breach of a violence restraining order and on 27 August 2012 the charge was dismissed without a finding whether the appellant was guilty or not guilty and thereby an alleged offence as defined in the Act was constituted.
(ii)Section 17(2) of the Act in respect of injuries and losses suffered by the respondent as a consequence of alleged offences which occurred on 21 April 2011, 20 July 2011 and 19 December 2011 at Atwell and no person has been charged with the commission of those alleged offences; and
(iii)Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of injuries and losses suffered by the respondent as a consequence of the appellant injuring her on 9 February 2012 at Atwell for which incident he was convicted in the District Court at Perth on 19 November 2012 of aggravated burglary and thereby a proved offence as defined in the Act was constituted.
The award was in the total sum of $34,702 being:

Claim

$

Injuries

$21,000

Report

$2,000

Loss of income

$10,000

Future psychological counselling to a maximum of:

$1,502

Subtotal

$34,702

Less future treatment not yet incurred

($1,502)

Balance payable

$33,200

Pursuant to s 45(1)(b) of the Act, the assessor also ordered a limit on the sum of money that may be the subject of reimbursement proceedings under pt 6 of the Act to prevent the CEO from recovering any more than $19,000…

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 BT v BT

Details

AGLC: BT v BT [2014] WADC 166
Case: [2014] WADC 166
Decision Date: 5 DECEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent sought compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2004 (NSW) for losses incurred as a result of a criminal offence. The respondent, who was the victim of a crime committed by the appellant, was awarded compensation. The appellant then sought to appeal the decision, specifically the award for economic loss. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the award for economic loss was justified under the legislation. The appellant argued that the award should not have been made as the losses were not a direct result of the crime, but rather a consequence of the respondent's own actions. The respondent contended that the award was appropriate as the losses were a foreseeable result of the crime.

The court found that the award for economic loss was justified. It held that the losses were a direct result of the crime and that it was foreseeable that the respondent would incur such losses as a result of the appellant's actions. The court noted that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses, and that the award was necessary to provide just compensation for the respondent's injuries. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court made no further orders.

Orders