CME

In this matter, the court was presented with an appeal against a decision made by an assessor under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003. The applicant sought compensation for injuries sustained during a crime, but the assessor rejected the claim on the basis that the applicant had failed to perform an act that she ought reasonably to have done to assist in the prosecution of the unknown offenders. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's failure to assist the prosecution constituted a valid ground for rejecting her claim for compensation. This required an interpretation of section 38 of the Act, which provides that compensation may be refused if the applicant did not do an act they ought reasonably to have done to assist the prosecution of the offender. The court had to determine whether the applicant's failure to assist the prosecution was a relevant consideration in this context, and if so, whether it warranted the rejection of her claim.

The court held that the applicant's failure to assist the prosecution did not constitute a valid ground for rejecting her claim for compensation. The court found that section 38 of the Act was not intended to apply in situations where the offender was unknown, as in this case. The court held that the applicant's failure to assist the prosecution was not a relevant consideration in determining whether she was entitled to compensation. The court also noted that the applicant had cooperated with the police to the best of her ability, and had provided a statement to the police that was used in the prosecution of the offender. The court concluded that the assessor's decision to reject the applicant's claim was therefore flawed, and remitted the matter to the assessor for reconsideration.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the assessor for reconsideration, with directions to the assessor to take into account the court's findings and to determine whether the applicant was entitled to compensation in light of those findings. The court did not make any orders as to costs.