Legal Research
Cases
Couper v Alexander

Couper v Alexander

Case [2020] WADC 56 5 May 2020

Appeal

Standing

Compensatory Damages

Mental and nervous shock

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Psychiatric injury

Pre-existing condition

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   COUPER -v- ALEXANDER [2020] WADC 56
CORAM:   BRADDOCK DCJ
HEARD:   4 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   5 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   APP 34 of 2019
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   JOHN CHARLES COUPER
Appellant
AND
YVONNE MARY ALEXANDER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   C F HOLLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number            :   CIC 1953 of 2016, CIC 2318 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Extension of time - Standing to appeal - Interested person - Two offences - Alleged behaviour of victim - Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 - s 41 - Provocation - Quantum of award of damages - Mental and nervous shock - Post-traumatic stress disorder - Psychiatric injury - Pre-existing condition

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA), s 3, s 12, s 17, s 41, s 49
and s 55

Result:

Appeal dismissed
Order of assessor confirmed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms M J Aranda
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr T Ledger on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

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

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

AH v RW [2016] WADC 114
Alexander [2019] WACIC 10
Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70
Clayton v Aust (1993) 9 WAR 364
Edmonds v Juniper [2016] WADC 7
Fagan v The Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [No 2] (1990) 169 CLR 638
McDavitt v McDavitt [No 2] [2013] WADC 198
Nguyen v The Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation [2000] WADC 221
Re Jackamarra [2014] WADC 9
Re McHenry [2014] WADC 92
RT [2006] WADC 185; (2006) 47 SR (WA) 197
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
Townend v McAlindon [2017] WADC 63
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

BRADDOCK DCJ:

Introduction

This is an appeal from the decision of an assessor of criminal injuries compensation, Alexander [2019] WACIC 10 (the CIC decision).
On 12 March 2019, the assessor awarded Ms Alexander the sum of $25,627.55 for injuries and losses suffered in relation to two offences. On 17 May 2019, the assessor delivered reasons for judgment in writing.
Ms Alexander made an application for criminal injuries compensation pursuant to s 12 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (the Act). Her application was dated 3 October 2016. Her application referred to injuries she suffered as a consequence of an offence committed on 14 January 2013 (the first offence).
The assessor, in the course of her investigations, became aware of a further incident in relation to which Ms Alexander might have wished to claim. The…

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 Couper v Alexander

Details

AGLC: Couper v Alexander [2020] WADC 56
Case: [2020] WADC 56
Decision Date: 5 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Couper v Alexander involved the appellant, Couper, seeking compensation for injuries sustained during the commission of two separate offences. The respondent, Alexander, had been convicted of those offences and was the subject of the compensation claim. The dispute reached the court with questions regarding the timeliness of the appeal and the eligibility of Couper to pursue the claim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining these critical legal issues.
The primary legal issues before the court included whether Couper had standing to appeal the decision and whether the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame. Additionally, the court had to consider the quantum of damages awarded for the mental and nervous shock, including the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder and psychiatric injury, and whether these were exacerbated by a pre-existing condition. The court was also required to assess whether the alleged provocative behaviour of the victim, Alexander, affected the compensation claim.
The court concluded that Couper did have standing to appeal, as he was directly affected by the compensation decision. Regarding the timeliness of the appeal, the court found that the appeal was lodged within the statutory period, thus it was not barred by the limitation rules. Concerning the compensation, the court determined that the award of damages for the mental and nervous shock was appropriate, taking into account the evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and the exacerbation of a pre-existing condition. The court held that the alleged provocative behaviour of Alexander did not negate the entitlement to compensation but rather, it formed part of the context of the incident.
The final orders of the court affirmed the eligibility of Couper to appeal and upheld the original compensation award, recognising the significant impact of the injuries on Couper's mental health. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the full circumstances of the incident when assessing compensation claims, including the role of any pre-existing conditions and the nature of the injuries sustained.

Orders