DXI v Commissioner of Victims Rights

[2019] NSWCATAD 194

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	DXI v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2019] NSWCATAD 194
Hearing dates:	6 September 2019
Date of orders:	16 September 2019
Decision date:	16 September 2019
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 12 June 2019 is affirmed.
Catchwords:	Victims Rights and Support – administrative review – Time limits for an application for victims support – act of violence
Legislation Cited:	Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Cases Cited:	None cited
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	DXI (Applicant) Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) S Sabesan (Victims Services)(Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/00199319
Publication restriction:	A non-publication Order is made under s 64 (1) (b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (No. 2) (NSW).

REASON FOR DECISION

1. These proceedings were commenced by an Application for Administrative Review (‘the Application”) filed on 27 June 2019, in which the applicant sought administrative review of a decision made by a delegate of the Respondent in respect of an Application for Victims Support. The applicant is known by the pseudonym ‘DXI’.

Background

Application for Victims Support

2. On 1 March 2018, DXI lodged an Application for Victims Support under the provisions of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (“the Act”), which alleged that he was the primary victim of acts of violence in the nature of robbery and home invasion that was perpetrated by unknown offenders over a period of time from 25 May 2015 to 3 January 2017, at South Kempsey in New South Wales, as follows:

Shortly after moving in to mentioned address, a gang armed with knives attempted to break the door unsuccessfully. Then on 10/4/16 they stole property of around $2,500 value and causing more than $2,000 damage. I was not at home at the time. Then on 3/1/17 they broke into my vehicle and stole tools. For some reason I am the only one being targeted in the street.

3. The application alleged that DXI suffered a psychological injury as a result of the acts of violence and that he sought counselling and a recognition payment. However, the application also indicated that DXI sought financial assistance for immediate needs and/or economic loss for “security” and “personal belongings stolen” and stated, relevantly:

Apart from stolen goods and damage to my property, I have been spending money drinking and gambling as consequence of the stress and anxiety of living being targeted by those criminals. Since all this started I have wasted around 5000 dollars I had in savings.

4. DXI also indicated that he had made an insurance claim for damage to his property and had paid an excess of $800 and that he reported the acts of violence to NSW Police on 15 May 2015, 10 April 2016 and 3 January 2017.

5. On 24 January 2017, DXI sent an email to the respondent, in which he stated:

I recently requested help to improve security around my house. The Item I requested was a higher fence at the back of the property, as the one I currently have is very low and very easy for the criminals who continuously roam around the area…For that purpose I requested a quote on November 2018 and sent it to your mailing address…Today I spoke to one of your officers and was told that requests take up to six months to be resolved, and that I have now to fill another form which she will post to me. My situation is really desperate with thugs and criminals continuously trying to enter my property, last night doe example I heard some of them at the front of the house opening the front gate and entering the carport… Cannot trust the police as they seem not very interested in solving anything… When I first come to this town in 2008 the situation was bad with thugs roaming freely the streets and assaulting elderly people in their homes, ten years later and nothing has changed, and now seem to be worst… Sometimes I really fear for my life and do not sleep at night, and to have an extra security measure could be reassuring. Hope for a prompt reply…

6. A Police COPS Event Report number E58573669 was created on 15 May 2015. This indicates that persons of interest, who were unknown, had attempted to kick DXI’s door in while he held the door and requested Police assistance ASAP. It noted that the persons of interest were no longer at the door but it was not known if they were outside. Police recorded the incident as an attempted break and enter.

7. On 8 February 2019, DXI sent a further email to the respondent, in which he stated:

I refer to your letter dated 4 February 2019, regarding recognition payment… No new information can be submitted at this point, other than my suspicion that I have been targeted by people who want me out of my house and I cannot find any reason for that, may be they consider me an outsider… To the three attacks reported to the police, other minor incidents of people opening my front gates at night, or jumping over the back fence, or wandering in the nature reserve at the back of the property, have occurred over a period of time… I recently submitted a quote for a higher and more secure fence at the back, thinking it may be considered under Financial Assistance for Immediate Needs/ Home security upgrade, as described in your website. But the officer I spoke recently stated I need to apply for recognition payment, which is a completely different situation… I really would like to be considered for the Financial Assistant / Home security upgrade, and have the fence repaired and probably would deter the thugs who attacked me and broke into my house. As an information for recognition payment, I would like to inform you that the cost of break into my house apart from the 800 dollars I paid the insurance for the excess, to repair damaged doors and doors frames, is more than 4000 dollars as a laptop, and gold jewelry were stolen and never recovered and for which did not have any insurance… One of the jewelry items was a valuable gold chain, a gift from my later mother and obvious impossible to replace. I hope you will give consideration to my request…

8. On 25 February 2019, DXI advised the respondent by email that he did not have receipts for the additional “expenses” referred to in his email dated 8 February 2019. However, on 2 March 2019, the respondent advised DXI by email that receipts were required and that his claim for financial assistance could not be referred to an assessor without them.

Decision at First Instance

9. On 22 March 2019, an Assessor (Client Claims) issued a Notice of decision, which determined that DXI was not eligible for victims support because his application was lodged out of time. The Assessor stated that in order to be considered eligible, the documentary evidence must establish that DXI was a victim of an act that apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence, which has involved violent conduct and has resulted in injury or death (s 19). For financial support and/or a recognition payment, the following documents are required: (1) a police report or report to a Government Agency; (2) a medical, dental or counselling report verifying the primary victim has been injured as a result of the act of violence.

10. The Assessor noted that the COPS Event Report E58573669 dated 15 May 2015, indicates that police found “sneaker imprints” on DXI’s front door and considered that the alleged offenders had targeted him after viewing him through his window. A counselling report from Dina Jeffery, psychologist, indicated that DXI was at home when the first incident occurred, but he was not at home when the second incident and third incidents occurred. She opined that due to the first incident, DXI was suffering from lack of sleep caused by his fear that he is a target.

11. The Assessor determined that under s 40 of the Act, a 2-year time limit applies to applications for counselling, financial support and a recognition payment and that there is no cope under the Act to extend the timeframe. The Assessor was unable to determine whether the incidents alleged on 10 April 2016 and 3 July (sic) 2017 were the relevant act of violence dates because DXI said that he was not at home during those alleged incidents and there was no element of a direct act of violence against him. It was also unknown if those incidents were related as the alleged offenders were unknown.

12. In relation to the alleged act of violence on 15 May 2015, DXI was required to lodge his application on or before 15 May 2017, However, he did not do so and the application with respect to that alleged act of violence was dismissed.

13. I note that a copy of this decision was posted to DVS under cover of a letter from the respondent dated 24 April 2019, but the date of posting is not indicated in the documents before me.

Internal review

14. On 3 May 2019, DXI applied for an internal review of the Assessor’s decision, in which he stated:

I have attached an additional page. My concern is you had considered the third reported incident as I was not in the premises. In fact I was there, where would I go in the night without my vehicle? The incident was reported as theft but that night I heard very clearly the sliding door of my vehicle being opened but opted for caution and went out in the dark but not approaching the vehicle. I would really appreciate confidentiality and my letter nor being known to anybody. I completely distrust the police as I suspect they disclose information, may be unintentionally. But I fear for my safety.

15. In a separate letter to the respondent dated 3 May 2019, DXI stated, relevantly:

…The only time when I was not at the premises was during the second incident, when the attackers destroyed front and back doors and ransacked the house.

During the first incident I was home and tried (sic) unsuccessfully to hold the door and prevent the attackers gaining access, this occurred for a period of time of not less than three minutes and I believe the people nearby were aware of this happening, yet they chose to ignore it and one of them who have a clear view of the area being under attack, only reported that the house next door was about to be broken into… When the attackers heard me calling the police, they fled and pretended to try to broke the next door house, empty at the time. .. The person I heard calling the local police did not have a clear view of the house next door to mine as there is a large tree obstructing the view. And as the gang was escaping before the arrival of the police, the pretend action of breaking other house was to disguise the fact that I was the primary target.

During the third reported incident, I was inside the house and not out as you stated. I remember being inside the lounge watching TV and heard the noise of the sliding door of my van, being open and then closing due to the ground not being level and the door slided back to the original position. When I heard that noise, turned off the TV and all lights and went out very carefully armed with a large knife and a steel bar. I did not approach the vehicle but stayed in an area where I could defend myself. I heard whispering voices coming from the adjacent house and I believe they saw me armed and desisted to attack me. I did not approach the vehicle as that would have left me in a compromised position and unable to defend myself. The next morning, and after guarding the house all night, I closed the sliding door of the van and noticed a tool missing. I decided to report to the police the theft and omit what really happened for fears the police would take action against me for keeping home-made weapons.

I do not trust much the police, as I believe they know most of the offenders and turn a blind eye to their action, possibly influenced by the politicians that failed for decades to address and correct the fact that this ear hold the highest record of criminality in the State. And that is clearly seen when walking the streets and observing anti-social behaviour of any kind, like people roaming the streets riding unregistered motorbikes at high speed, or others playing very loud music at any time, day or night, sometimes at night and early hours in the morning. I find really hard to believe that the police is not aware of these and many others situations, but I an quite sure that they would prosecute me and charge me in the hypothetical event of me harming a criminal…

It is clear to me that in the third reported incident, they tried to lure me outside and attack me, they did not open the van and escaped after, they remained hiding on or near the house next door…

This is an ongoing and unresolved situation, and I am well aware that sooner or later I will be forced to face these attackers, at the moment of writing this letter and no later than last night I saw two men and a woman standing at the front of the premises and watching the house, and it was almost midnight, and a very unusual time for people walking the streets. There had been other times when I heard noises in the back yard and the security lights were activated. One night a large brick was thrown in the shed in the back yard, in other person jumped over the back fence and ran towards the front and into the street.

I am reluctant to call the police as they will not bring any solution, and prefer not to sleep most nights and be alert and prepared, and somehow I know that this will not end well as I believe the instigators of this violence live very close to me and have the confidence of the police. I prefer not to share my concerns with them or any other people, this would only bring me more attacks and despair and anxiety.

As you can see the third reported incident occurred within the two years that your require for lodging any claim, the incident occurred on January 2017 and my claim was lodged sometime in 2018. But after that incident I witnessed several more incidents of trespassing and suspicious activity around the front and back of the premises.

My sister who is 70 y.o. will arrive from overseas sometime during September to visit me and I am really worried that seeing a new person in the house would bring more interest to the criminal element who are watching me and I cannot afford to rent a house or hotel elsewhere… And a higher fence would act as a deterrent for criminals.

Please do not share any of the above with any third party, as if this happen can result in more attacks. I really fear for my safety…

16. On 10 May 2019, the respondent wrote to DXI and advised him that his application would be considered by a Senior Assessor at the first available opportunity on or after 27 May 2019 and that he should lodge any further medical evidence or other information before then.

17. On 26 May 2019, DXI sent an email to the respondent in which he stated, inter alia, that he did not have any other medical evidence. While he had mentioned his sleeping problems and associated depression to his family doctor, who is in Sydney, he does not want to be medicated because it is addictive and hard to withdraw from. He asserted that since the first incident occurred, his health has become more fragile and that the anxiety and depression had contributed to a rise in blood sugar levels and increased blood pressure, which required medication. His problems were also aggravated as a result of an episode in a local hospital, where he was at risk of suffering serious brain damage during a Colonoscopy procedure. He said that he is currently on alert knowing that sooner or later he will be attacked again and on most nights he waits and prepares to defend himself. No other house in the street has been attacked and this is enough to fuel any anxiety or paranoia. He concluded that he did not have high hopes for a good resolution “knowing how the system works”.

18. DXI submitted a copy of a further Police COPS Event report number E64023367 with his email dated 26 May 2019. This indicates that on 4 January 2017, DXI reported that he found the side door of his van open as well as the front gate open at 6:30. A power drill was missing. He heard male voices on the street earlier in the morning.

19. On 21 June 2019, the Senior Assessor issued a Notice of Review Decision, which determined that the evidence established that DXI was the primary victim of an act of violence, but due to legislative time limits, he was not eligible for financial support and a recognition payment. However, counselling was available through the Approved Counselling Service. In making that determination, the Senior Assessor stated, relevantly:

6.   (DXI) also requested that no information be provided to police about the application or internal review. As such, it is not possible to directly request further information from police about the incidents that are the subject of the application, without potentially breaching this request for confidentiality

…

20.   An act of violence is defined by section 19 of the Act as an incident apparently occurring during the commission of an offence that involves violent conduct against a person, and that has resulted in injury to a person.

21.   In my view, all of the above elements are established in relation to the incident on 15 May 2015. The incident involved an apprehension of immediate physical harm when (DXI) heard the offender/s attempting to gain entry and this was supported by evidence found by police, as recorded in their report.

22.   However, the later incidents appear to have involved property offences only, as suggested by the police report of 4 January 2017, which refers to the offences of Actual stealing and Steal from motor vehicle, which are not personal violence offences.

23.   I have had regard to (DXI)’s review submissions about hearing the alleged offenders and note that the police report states that he: Heard male voices on the street earlier in the morning of the later incident. However, I do not consider this evidence sufficient to establish violent conduct in relation to this later incident…

20. The Senior Assessor determined that under s 40 of the Act, the two-year time limitation commences on 15 May 2015. Therefore, the application was lodged late because it was not established that the later incidents were acts of violence or related to the initial incident. The Senior Assessor stated, relevantly:

29. Exceptions to the standard time limits for primary victims of acts of violence involving domestic violence, sexual assault, and violence committed against children, also outlined in section 40, do not apply in relation to this application. Regrettably I must advise that no other exception or discretionary exemption is available.

21. Accordingly, the Senior Assessor concluded that DXI was not eligible for financial support and a recognition payment, but that counselling remained available under the Approved Counselling Service.

22. I note that a copy of the Senior Assessor’s decision was posted to DXI under cover a letter from the respondent dated 13 June 2019, but the date of posting is not indicated in the documents before me.

Application for administrative review

23. The current application for administrative review was filed on 27 June 2019 and I am satisfied that it was filed within time.

24. This Tribunal’s powers in relation to an application for administrative review are governed by s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (“the ADR Act”), which provides:

(1)   In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:

(a)   any relevant factual material,

(b)   any applicable written or unwritten law.

(2)   For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision.

(3)   In determining an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide:

(a)   to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or

(b)   to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or

(c)   to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or

(d)   to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.

25. The matter came before me for Directions on 9 August 2019, when DXI appeared in person and Ms Sabesan appeared for the respondent. The documents provided by the respondent under s 58 of the ADR Act were comprehensive and complete. I ordered the respondent to file and serve a summary of legal arguments on or before 30 August 2019 and listed the matter for hearing on 6 September 2019. I also granted leave to DSK to appear at the hearing by telephone.

Applicant’s further submissions

26. DSK lodged the following further submissions with his application:

As I stated in my application for review by NCAT, I dispute VS findings that during a third incident where I was the victim, there was no violence against me. Targeting a person for long periods of time, as it is in my case, is a form of violence, and even if it is not physical violence can cause serious physical and mental illnesses.

The last incident which took place at my residence on 3 January 2017, at around 22:00 hs (sic) was clearly an attempt to lure me outside to be attacked and to gain entry into the premises. As I explained to VS, when heard noises coming from my vehicle, turned off all lights, and silently and carefully went out, armed with a steel bar and a large knife, ready to confront the trespassers. I remained in a position where they could not see me and heard voices whispering from one side of the house, waited for a period of time then went inside the house where I remained awake and alert all night. Upon inspecting the vehicle the next day, found the sliding door open and a tool missing, and that was reported to police, but not my actions the previous night as the police could take action against me for premeditation and attempt to cause harm with

Self-made weapons… This could happen if the time comes to act and defend myself and they would have a precedent of premeditation. I know the attacks will resume sooner or late… No other person in the street or vicinity suffered so many attacks and brutal bashings and some never had been attacked or robbed. Violent crimes targeting the elderly and fragile is not new in this town, and we could refer to an editorial in The Sun Herald of 1 November 2015, and a corresponding article that was front page, with testimonials of old people victims of attacks and bashings.

This is an ongoing situation and an old issue as the town itself, and nobody really acknowledge and attempt to tackle, possibly in the name of political correctness, and for that reason I live in fears but also ready to defend myself to any extent, and this is something that the police and politicians do not like and certainly would like to prosecute people like me. I requested VS not to disclose this information to police for obvious reasons.

My request to VS, to obtain help for a higher fence, could bring a bit of relief to my anxiety and fears, as I would only have to concentrate my attention to one side of the house, a higher fence definitely would deter intruders trying to gain access from the back of the house, and $2700 is not a huge amount of money. Criminals spend that amount in one hour when the system provide them with lawyers and counselling and advice after they are charged for committing offences.

Finally, when VS mention timeframes for my applications, they never consider the fact that many victims do not know about VS…And that was my case, I found out about it accidentally and too late. It is true that police attending incidents give victims a card with their names and the information about VS on the back of the card, but that information is only concise and not explanatory, and most of the times as it was my case, victims do not think rationally and are under effects of shock and trauma that could last for years. In my particular case I started to deal with the trauma years later when attending counselling.

It is obvious that there is not duty of care towards victims of crime, if there was any, all victims should receive at least one phone call, either from police liaison or any other source, to help the victims and advice (sic) them of the services available. And this is exactly how the system works for criminals. I do not accept VS argument of time frames, simply because I was not properly informed about it. Please maintain this confidential.

27. At the hearing of this matter, DXI appeared in person and Ms Sabesan appeared for the respondent.

28. DXI referred to his written submissions in support of the application for internal review and in support of the current application. He asserted that he was not aware of the timeframes for making an application under the Act and said that he did not understand why the Government had done this to victims. He also said that he wrote to his local Member of Parliament after the first incident occurred. He believed that his information “was leaked” and that this is why he has “became targeted”. He also complained that the police “are corrupt” and he alleged that a gold coin “mysteriously disappeared” from his home after the police came to investigate the first incident. He believes that the police “are part of the problem” and that “there is no law in this town”. He does not sleep at night, but sleeps during the day, and his greatest fear is that one day his house will be set alight while he is inside it.

29. The Tribunal noted that the second alleged incident on 10 April 2016 occurred less than two years before the date of the application for victims support and asked DXI whether he reported that incident to police? In response, he largely repeated his previous oral submissions, but ultimately said that he did not report the incident to police because he does not trust them.

30. DXI informed the Tribunal that he wants the respondent to assist him to improve the security at his home and that he requires a higher back fence for this purpose. However, the Tribunal informed him that it only has power to review the respondent’s decision to not approve victims support by way of a recognition payment.

31. The respondent filed written submissions dated 28 August 2019, which I have summarised as follows:

1. The application for victims support in respect of the first alleged act of violence is out of time. The Tribunal does not have power to extend the statutory timeframe under s 40 of the Act and DXI is therefore not eligible for victims support.

2. The second alleged incident does not satisfy the definition of an act of violence under s 19 of the Act, as it does not involve any direct violence against him. Further, the evidentiary requirements under s 39 of the Act have not been satisfied. Therefore, DXI is not eligible for victims support.

3. The third alleged incident does not satisfy the definition of an act of violence under s 19 of the Act as it does not involve a direct personal violence offence against him. Rather, the police report indicates that it was a property offence only. Further, the evidentiary requirements under s 39 of the Act have not been satisfied. Therefore, DXI is not eligible for victims support.

32. Accordingly, the respondent submitted that the correct and preferable decision that the Tribunal should make is to affirm its decision dated 12 June 2019.

Consideration

Act of Violence

33. Section 23 (1) of the Act provides that a primary victim of an act of violence is eligible for the support under the scheme described in s 26 of the Act.

34. “Act of violence” is defined in s 19 (1) of the Act as follows (relevantly):

(1)   In this Act, act of violence means an act or series of related acts, whether committed by one or more persons:

(a)   that has apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence, and

(b)   that has involved violent conduct against one or more persons, and

(c)   that has resulted in injury or death to one or more of those persons.

(2)   For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to an offence in subsection (1)(a) extends to conduct of a person that would constitute an offence were it not for the fact that the person cannot, or might not, be held to be criminally responsible for the conduct because of the person’s age or mental illness or impairment…

35. The onus is on DXI to prove his allegations of robbery and home invasion on the balance of probabilities.

36. There is no dispute that DXI was the primary victim of an act of violence that occurred on 15 May 2015. Based on the available evidence, I am satisfied that he has established that he was a primary victim of an act of violence in respect of that incident.

37. However, by reason of s 40 of the Act, DXI is not eligible for victims support in relation to that act of violence because his application was not lodged within the permitted timeframe and the Act does not permit any extension of time.

38. There is a dispute as to whether DXI was the primary victim of an act of violence on 10 April 2016 and/or 3 January 2017.

39. It is apparent from his submissions that DXI perceives that he has been “targeted” and/or “terrorised” by unknown offenders, who have attempted to lure him out of his home in order to attack him and that he clearly considers the offenders’ conduct as being violent in nature. However, the available evidence does not establish a safe climate for accepting that perception. This is particularly the case in relation to the alleged incident on 10 April 2016, as DXI’s evidence is to the effect that he was not at home when it occurred.

40. Based upon a consideration of all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that an act of violence is established on the balance of probabilities.

41. Section 39 of the Act provides, relevantly:

39 Documentary evidence

(1)   An application for victims support is to be accompanied by such documentary evidence as may be required by the approved form.

(2)   Without limiting subsection (1), the documentary evidence to be required:

(a)   for an application for financial assistance for immediate needs under section 26—is documentary evidence (such as a medical or police report or a report by an agency that provides support services to victims of crime) sufficient to support, on the balance of probability, the applicant’s claim to be a victim of an act of violence, and

(b)   for an application for financial assistance for economic loss under section 26 or 27 or for a recognition payment—is:

(i)   a police report, or a report by a Government agency or any other agency that provides support services to victims of crime, sufficient to support, on the balance of probability, the applicant’s claim to be a victim of an act of violence, and

(ii)   a medical, dental or counselling report verifying that the applicant or child who is the primary victim concerned has actually been injured as a result of an act of violence.

(3)   An application for financial assistance under section 26 (1) (c), 27 or 29 is to give full particulars of any economic loss for which the assistance is sought.

(4)   The application is to include:

(a)   in the case of actual expenses—receipts, invoices or other approved forms of substantiation of the expenditure incurred or to be incurred, or

(b)   in the case of actual loss of earnings—the name and address of the employer, the period of absence from work and a statement from the employer substantiating those particulars.

(5)   In this section:

agency includes a non-government agency funded by the Commonwealth to provide support services to victims of crime.

42. I note that DXI did not report the alleged incident on 10 April 2016 to police. Accordingly, the evidentiary requirements of s 39 of the Act have not been satisfied.

43. As a result, I am satisfied that DXI is not eligible for victims support in respect of the alleged incident on 10 April 2016.

44. While DXI did report an incident on 3 January 2017 to police, his report was restricted to a theft from a motor vehicle. I note that DXI alleges that this incident also was an attempt by unknown offenders to lure him out of his home in order to attack him and that he went outside armed with a steel bar and a large knife in order to confront the offenders in order to defend himself, if required. However, he did not report those particular matters to the police because he was concerned that they would consider this as evidence of premeditation on his part and that this could be used against him in the future if he engaged in an armed confrontation with alleged offenders.

45. Based upon a consideration of all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that an act of violence is established on the balance of probabilities and it is also apparent that the evidentiary requirements of s 39 of the Act have not been satisfied.

46. Accordingly, I am satisfied that DXI is not eligible for victims support in respect of the incident alleged on 3 January 2017.

Non-publication order

47. In his submissions to the respondent and this Tribunal, DXI has expressed concern that he will be further targeted if information relating to his application for victims support is published and he has repeatedly requested that his submissions and evidence should remain confidential.

48. Based upon DXI’s submissions, and with a view to abundant caution, I consider it appropriate to make a non-publication order pursuant to s 64 (1) (b) of the Civil and Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 2013 (No.2).

Order

1. The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 12 June 2019 is affirmed.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 16 September 2019