CAH v MJH

The case of CAH v MJH was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia and involved an application under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1970. The applicant, CAH, sought compensation for significant sexual assaults committed by her father, MJH, when she was a child. The court was required to determine the appropriate compensation amount and whether any costs should be awarded against the respondent. The primary legal issue was the aggregation of the various counts of the indictment for which MJH was convicted and the appropriate compensation for the injuries and mental trauma sustained by CAH.

The court considered the submissions and evidence provided, including the medical reports and the submissions from the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice. The court noted that compensation awards should reflect the extent of the damage and trauma suffered by the applicant. Given the severity of the assaults and the resulting trauma, the court found that the maximum award permitted under the Act, which was $22,500, was appropriate. The court also ruled that an order for costs should be made against the respondent, despite some debate in the authorities regarding the entitlement to costs in such cases.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that compensation should adequately reflect the harm suffered, and the maximum award under the Act was deemed sufficient in this case. The court rejected the argument that the compensation should be aggregated across the various counts of the indictment, instead opting for the maximum allowable award. The court also considered the precedent set by other authorities on the issue of costs in criminal injuries compensation cases, ultimately deciding that an order for costs against the respondent was appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that CAH should be awarded the maximum compensation of $22,500 under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1970, and that MJH should be ordered to pay the costs of the application. No costs were to be awarded against the Chief Executive Officer who appeared as amicus curiae.