EDMONDS -v- JUNIPER [2016] WADC 7

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 7
Case No:	APP:28/2015	Heard:	9 DECEMBER 2015
Coram:	GOETZE DCJ	Delivered:	22/01/16
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeals dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL JOHN EDMONDS ANDREW JAMES JUNIPER GARETH CHARLES EDMONDS
Catchwords:	Appeal Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 Section 41 Alleged behaviour of victim
Legislation:	Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
Case References:	MJN v MAJS [2003] WACC 9

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : EDMONDS -v- JUNIPER [2016] WADC 7 CORAM : GOETZE DCJ HEARD : 9 DECEMBER 2015 DELIVERED : 22 JANUARY 2016 FILE NO/S : APP 28 of 2015 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 BETWEEN : MICHAEL JOHN EDMONDS

Appellant

AND

ANDREW JAMES JUNIPER

Respondent

FILE NO/S : APP 31 of 2015 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

BETWEEN : GARETH CHARLES EDMONDS

Appellant

AND

ANDREW JAMES JUNIPER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : H L PORTER

Citation : [2015] WACIC 5

File No : CI 1776 of 2012, CI 1146 of 2014

Catchwords:

Appeal - Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 - Section 41 - Alleged behaviour of victim

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Representation:

APP 28 of 2015

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr B Hocking

Amicus Curiae

: Ms J Rhodes appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant : Not applicable

Respondent : Bradley Bayly Legal

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitor for Western Australia

APP 31 of 2015

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr B Hocking

Amicus Curiae

: Ms J Rhodes appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant : Not applicable

Respondent : Bradley Bayly Legal

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

MJN v MAJS [2003] WACC 9

GOETZE DCJ

Introduction

1 Michael Edmonds and his son Gareth Edmonds were both convicted after trial of certain offences involving Andrew Juniper who applied for, and obtained, orders for criminal injuries compensation against each of Michael and Gareth in their separate capacities. Michael was ordered to pay $5,000 and Gareth $23,000 by way of criminal injuries compensation to Mr Juniper.

2 Michael and Gareth now appeal the decisions of the Chief Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation.

The offending and the convictions

3 Michael's daughter Zoe, who is Gareth's sister, was previously in a relationship with Mr Juniper. Michael and Gareth alleged that she purchased a motor vehicle for the sum of $4,600 and that Mr Juniper wrongly transferred ownership of that vehicle into his own name.

4 Mr Juniper claimed to have contributed $3,000 to the purchase price of the vehicle.…

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 Edmonds v Juniper

Details

AGLC: Edmonds v Juniper [2016] WADC 7
Case: [2016] WADC 7
Decision Date: 22 JANUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent, Juniper, against a decision awarding compensation to the applicant, Edmonds, under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003. The applicant sought compensation following an incident where he was shot by a police officer. The dispute centred on the relevance of the applicant's prior criminal conduct to the award of compensation under the Act. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's prior criminal conduct could be considered when determining the award of compensation under the Act, and whether the trial judge erred in failing to consider this conduct. The court had to interpret section 41 of the Act, which deals with the consideration of the victim's behaviour, and assess the relevance of the applicant's criminal history to his eligibility for compensation.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in failing to consider the applicant's prior criminal conduct as it was not relevant to the award of compensation under the Act. The court held that section 41 of the Act was not applicable as the applicant was not the person whose behaviour was relevant to the award of compensation. The court concluded that the trial judge's decision to award compensation to the applicant was correct and dismissed the respondent's appeal. The court's decision affirmed the applicant's eligibility for compensation under the Act, irrespective of his prior criminal conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals dismissed

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.