DRJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights (No 2)

The applicants, women of Yazidi ethnicity, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against decisions of the Commissioner of Victims Rights and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). These decisions had dismissed their applications for support under the *Victims Rights and Support Act 2013* (NSW) on the basis that the acts of violence they claimed to have suffered occurred in Northern Iraq and Syria, not in New South Wales. The applicants contended that a sufficient connection with New South Wales existed, despite the location of the offending acts.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the *Victims Rights and Support Act 2013* (NSW) had the capacity to apply to acts of violence occurring outside New South Wales, provided there was a sufficient territorial nexus with the state. This required the Court to consider the nature of the territorial nexus required by the Act, the presumption of territoriality in statutory interpretation, and the potential for legislative displacement of this presumption, particularly in light of the *Interpretation Act 1987* (NSW) s 12. The Court also considered the extraterritorial legislative capacity of the New South Wales Parliament and the historical context of victims compensation schemes.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the presumption of territoriality, which presumes legislation operates only within the territorial limits of the enacting legislature, was not displaced by the *Victims Rights and Support Act 2013* (NSW). While acknowledging the potential for extraterritorial operation in certain circumstances, the Court found that the Act's language and purpose did not extend its reach to acts of violence occurring entirely outside New South Wales, even where the perpetrator had a connection to the state. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation, including the presumption of territoriality and the need for clear legislative intent to override it, and found that the applicants had not established the necessary territorial nexus for the Act to apply.

The summons was dismissed with costs.