Appellant:     In person
Respondent:     Mr A Oswald
Amicus Curiae              :     Ms R Phillips appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Not applicable
Respondent:     Cleveland & Co Lawyers
Amicus Curiae              :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

ALD v NCD [2012] WADC 45
Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27; (1992) 176 CLR 408
Bentham v Wass [2004] WADC 47
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666
Fairhead v Quartermaine [2010] WADC 1
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported; WASC (Burt J); Library No 4012; 15 December 1980)
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
Hondros, Re [1973] WAR 1
KMA v DFS [2010] WADC 6
Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3
M v J and J v J (Unreported WASC (Scott J); Library No 920598; 19 November 1992)
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (No 2) [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR 219
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164
Re Utting [2011] WADC 10
RJE v Bandy (Unreported WASC (Burt J); Library No 1365; 31 May 1974)
RLG v SG [2010] WADC 132
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
SW v BB [2010] WADC 86
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187
VPAN [2011] WADC 40
Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158

COMMISSIONER GETHING: This is an appeal from an award of $35,238 in criminal injuries compensation made in favour of the respondent on 22 September 2011 (Award). The award was made by the Chief Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (Assessor). The Assessor did not publish reasons. Of the sum awarded, $738 was ordered to be paid directly to St John Ambulance for services provided to the respondent. The balance of $34,500 has been paid to the respondent.
The Award has two components. The first was an application pursuant to Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 WA (CIC Act) s 12(1) in respect of injuries and losses suffered by her as a consequence of the appellant injuring her:
(a)on 31 December 2008 at Osborne Park for which he was convicted of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm (First Assault);
(b)on 11 January 2009…

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 Curnow v Garnant

Details

AGLC: Curnow v Garnant [2012] WADC 72
Case: [2012] WADC 72
Decision Date: 24 MAY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Curnow v Garnant involved the appellant, Curnow, who sought criminal injuries compensation from the respondent, Garnant, for an alleged assault that resulted in serious injury. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant claimed that the respondent had assaulted him, leading to severe injuries, and sought compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003. The respondent denied the assault and claimed that the appellant had fabricated the incident to obtain compensation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's claim for compensation could proceed despite the respondent's denial of the assault. The court needed to determine if the appellant's alleged offence of fabricating evidence could be considered in light of the proven offence of assault. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the appellant's claim was valid under the provisions of the Act, particularly in circumstances where the alleged offender had denied the assault.

The court held that the appellant's claim for compensation could proceed, despite the respondent's denial of the assault. The court reasoned that the Act provides for compensation to victims of crime, regardless of whether the alleged offender has been convicted of the crime. The court further found that the appellant's alleged offence of fabricating evidence did not preclude his entitlement to compensation under the Act. The court emphasised that the Act's purpose was to provide relief to victims, and the appellant's alleged fabrication did not negate the fact that he had suffered injuries as a result of an alleged assault. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to compensation for his injuries.

The court ordered that the respondent, Garnant, pay the appellant, Curnow, compensation for the injuries sustained in the alleged assault. The court's decision recognised the appellant's entitlement to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, notwithstanding the respondent's denial of the assault and the appellant's alleged fabrication of evidence.

Orders