CTC v Commissioner of Victims Rights - [2017] NSWCATAD 118

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: CTC v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 118
Hearing dates: 1 March 2017
Date of orders: 13 April 2017
Decision date: 13 April 2017
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:
The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 8 December 2015 is affirmed.

Catchwords: VICTIMS RIGHTS – administrative review – statutory interpretation - whether an application lodged by the applicant’s Guardian under 1996 Act was properly made and determined - whether the determination of the application under the 1996 Act is a bar to claiming victims support under the 2013 Act
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Act 2010 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Victims Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013
Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited: CTK v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 105
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority 194 CLR 255
Bropho v Western Australia [1990] HCA 24
Harvey v Victims Compensation Tribunal [2001] NSWDC 604 at [41]
Newcrest Mining (WA) and Another v Commonwealth of Australia and Another (1997) 147 ALR 42
C & J Clark v IRC [1973] 1 WLR 905 at 911
Texts Cited: Second Reading Speech of the Victims Rights and Support Bill 2013 – The Hon. Michael Gallacher dated 29 May 2013
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: CTC (Applicant)
Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation:
Solicitors:
K Avers, Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service (Applicant)
J Singh, Victims Services (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/00378390
Publication restriction: A non-publication Order is made under s 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (No. 2) (NSW) in respect of the names of private individuals, and other information which might identify them.

REASON FOR DECISION

In these proceedings, which were commenced by an application (‘the Application”) filed on 5 October 2016, the applicant sought administrative review of a decision made by a delegate of the respondent in respect of an application for support that was lodged by the applicant (known by the pseudonym “CTC”).

Background

The matter has a complex background involving a total of four applications that were lodged either by or on behalf of CTC. Two applications for compensation were lodged and determined under the provisions of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (“the old Act”) and two applications for victims support were lodged and determined under the provisions of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (“the new Act”).

First Application for Compensation

On 13 October 1999, CTC’s Foster Mother lodged an Application for Compensation on her behalf under the provisions of “the old Act” under the terms of a Guardianship Order made by the Local Court of NSW on 26 January 1995. This alleged that CTC was the primary victim of an act of violence in the nature of a series of indecent assaults that occurred between…

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 CTC v Commissioner of Victims Rights

Details

AGLC: CTC v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 118
Case: [2017] NSWCATAD 118
Decision Date: 13 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between CTC and the Commissioner of Victims Rights involved a dispute concerning the eligibility of the applicant, CTC, to claim victims support under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2013. The applicant, who has an intellectual disability, had an application for assistance lodged by her Guardian under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1996. The Senior Assessor, on review, affirmed the decision of the Commissioner to deny the applicant’s claim for victims support, finding that the application made under the 1996 Act precluded the applicant from making a claim under the 2013 Act.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the application made by the applicant’s Guardian under the 1996 Act was properly made and subsequently determined, and if so, whether this determination acted as a bar to the applicant claiming victims support under the 2013 Act. The court was required to interpret and apply the relevant provisions of both the 1996 Act and the 2013 Act to determine the validity of the Guardian’s application and its effect on the applicant’s eligibility for victims support.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the statutory framework and the legislative intent behind both the 1996 Act and the 2013 Act. The court held that the Guardian’s application under the 1996 Act was properly made and determined, as it complied with the procedural requirements and was within the scope of the Guardian’s authority. The court further determined that the determination of the application under the 1996 Act constituted a bar to the applicant claiming victims support under the 2013 Act. This was based on the understanding that the 1996 Act provided a comprehensive framework for the administration of the applicant’s affairs, which included the right to seek assistance, thereby precluding any additional claims under the 2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of the Senior Assessor was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 8 December 2015 is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	CTC v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 118
Hearing dates:	1 March 2017
Date of orders:	13 April 2017
Decision date:	13 April 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 8 December 2015 is affirmed.
Catchwords:	VICTIMS RIGHTS – administrative review – statutory interpretation - whether an application lodged by the applicant’s Guardian under 1996 Act was properly made and determined - whether the determination of the application under the 1996 Act is a bar to claiming victims support under the 2013 Act
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Act 2010 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Victims Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	CTK v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 105 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority 194 CLR 255 Bropho v Western Australia [1990] HCA 24 Harvey v Victims Compensation Tribunal [2001] NSWDC 604 at [41] Newcrest Mining (WA) and Another v Commonwealth of Australia and Another (1997) 147 ALR 42 C & J Clark v IRC [1973] 1 WLR 905 at 911
Texts Cited:	Second Reading Speech of the Victims Rights and Support Bill 2013 – The Hon. Michael Gallacher dated 29 May 2013
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	CTC (Applicant) Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: K Avers, Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service (Applicant) J Singh, Victims Services (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/00378390
Publication restriction:	A non-publication Order is made under s 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (No. 2) (NSW) in respect of the names of private individuals, and other information which might identify them.