Legal Research
Cases
Chase v Francis

Chase v Francis

Case [2020] WADC 34 20 March 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   CHASE -v- FRANCIS [2020] WADC 34
CORAM:   GETHING DCJ
HEARD:   19 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED          :   20 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S:   APP 70 of 2019
BETWEEN:   DENISE MICHELLE CHASE
First Appellant
WAYNE PHILLIP CHASE
Second Appellant
AND
JUDE NATHAN FRANCIS
Respondent

FILE NO/S: APP 71 of 2019
BETWEEN: WAYNE PHILIP CHASE
Appellant
AND
JUDE NATHAN FRANCIS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
Coram:   C HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number            :   CIC 2688/2018

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Whether deceased was committing separate offences when he died - Defence of duress

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 32

Result:

Appeal allowed
Decision of Assessor reversed

Representation:

APP 70 of 2019

Counsel:

First Appellant	:	Mr A Karstaedt
Second Appellant	:	Mr A Karstaedt
Respondent	:	Mr K Robson
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms E F Archer on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

First Appellant	:	Origen Legal
Second Appellant	:	Origen Legal
Respondent	:	Evangel Legal
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

APP 71 of 2019

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr A Karstaedt
Respondent	:	Mr K Robson
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms E F Archer on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Origen Legal
Respondent	:	Evangel Legal
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Attorney General (WA) v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Aubertin v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 229; (2006) 33 WAR 87
CJJ v WAP [2012] WADC 25
Francis v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 43
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
Hutchings v Lachlan [2012] WADC 89
KBR v ADM [2018] WADC 120
Marchesano v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 177
McDavitt v McDavitt [2013] WADC 22
PYM v Richardson [2018] WADC 156
Re Puterangi [2017] WADC 168
Re Richardson [2009] WADC 93
Robinson [2017] WADC 18
SW v BB [2010] WADC 86
The State of Western Australia v Francis [2018] WASCSR 106 (Sentencing Remarks)
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

GETHING DCJ:

On 23 August 2019 the Chief Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (Assessor) refused separate applications by Mr Wayne Chase and Ms Denise Chase (together, the Appellants) for criminal injuries compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (CICA).
The Appellants had applied for compensation for losses suffered by them as a result of the death of their 15‑year‑old son (Deceased).
The Appellants' son died as a consequence of a motor vehicle collision on 28 December 2016. Jude Francis (the Respondent), pursued the Appellants' son at speed, causing him to ride his motorcycle into an intersection without giving way. The Deceased collided with another car, resulting in his death.
The Respondent was convicted in the Supreme Court of one count of manslaughter, one count…

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 Chase v Francis

Details

AGLC: Chase v Francis [2020] WADC 34
Case: [2020] WADC 34
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chase v Francis involved a claim for criminal injuries compensation by the applicant, who sought compensation for injuries sustained by the deceased during an incident in which he was allegedly killed by a police officer. The deceased had been charged with various criminal offences, including aggravated burglary, at the time of his death. The deceased's estate was denied compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, which provides for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of committing an offence, unless the deceased was acting under duress at the time of death. The deceased's estate appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the deceased was committing separate offences when he died, and whether the defence of duress could be applied in the circumstances. The court needed to determine whether the deceased was acting under duress at the time of his death, and whether this would exclude him from receiving compensation under the Act. The court also needed to consider whether the deceased's criminal conduct could be considered a single offence, or multiple separate offences.

The court held that the deceased was committing separate offences when he died, and that the defence of duress did not apply in the circumstances. The court found that the deceased's criminal conduct amounted to multiple separate offences, rather than a single offence, and that the defence of duress was not available to him as he had not been threatened with immediate and irreparable harm. The court held that the deceased's death occurred while he was committing an offence, and that he was not acting under duress at the time of his death. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the deceased's estate was not entitled to compensation under the Act. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and case law, and a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Orders