EM v CL

In the matter of EM v CL, the applicant sought review of a decision to refuse her claim for criminal injuries compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2004 (WA). The primary dispute was whether the refusal was lawful and whether the application of section 36 of the Act was appropriate, considering the nature of the relationship between the parties and the benefits that might accrue to the offender. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of section 36 of the Act, which allows for the refusal of compensation if it would benefit an offender. The court had to decide whether the evidence supported a finding that any award of compensation would benefit the offender, CL. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the assessor appropriately considered all relevant principles and evidence, including the additional information provided after the initial assessment.

The court found that the assessor had not fully considered the principles relevant to the assessment of compensation under section 36. It was noted that the relationship between the parties was complex, with intermittent contact and a history of violence. The court held that the refusal of compensation was not justified on the basis that any award would benefit the offender, as the evidence did not sufficiently support this conclusion. The additional information provided after the initial assessment also played a crucial role in the court's reasoning, as it highlighted ongoing issues and contact between the parties.

Consequently, the court set aside the decision to refuse compensation and remitted the matter back to the original decision-maker for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts, and the decision must be made based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant evidence and principles.