BVB v Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal

In this case, BVB, the appellant, sought assistance from the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, denied the claim on the basis that the appellant was not a victim of a criminal act. The dispute centred around whether the Tribunal was required to find that the child perpetrators lacked criminal intent, or if it was sufficient that their behaviour met the definition of a "criminal act". The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal was obliged to find that the child perpetrators lacked criminal intent, or if it was sufficient that their behaviour met the definition of a "criminal act". The court was required to interpret the provisions of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, specifically sections 1(1), 1(2)(c), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), 8A, 25, 31, 50, and 59(1)(a), in conjunction with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, section 148. The court needed to determine the correct interpretation of the statutory provisions, particularly whether the Tribunal was required to find that the perpetrators lacked criminal intent or if the behaviour alone was sufficient to meet the definition of a "criminal act".

The court found that the Tribunal was not obliged to find that the child perpetrators lacked criminal intent. Instead, it was sufficient that their behaviour met the definition of a "criminal act" as properly construed. The court held that the Tribunal should have considered whether the behaviour of the child perpetrators met the definition of a "criminal act" under the Act, rather than focusing on whether they lacked criminal intent. The court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the statutory provisions. The court's decision clarifies the correct approach for the Tribunal in determining whether a child perpetrator's behaviour meets the definition of a "criminal act" under the Act.