EMT v Commissioner of Victims Rights

The case of EMT v Commissioner of Victims Rights involved the applicant, EMT, who sought review of a decision denying her victim compensation. The Commissioner of Victims Rights had determined that the incident in question did not constitute an act of violence under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1997. The applicant argued that the act of violence was severe enough to warrant compensation. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the incident in question constituted an act of violence for the purposes of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act. The court had to interpret the statutory definition of 'act of violence' and assess whether the facts of the case met this definition. Additionally, the court needed to consider the severity of the harm suffered by the applicant, namely grievous bodily harm, and its relevance to the definition of 'act of violence' under the Act.

The court held that the statutory definition of 'act of violence' required a physical act causing harm or the reasonable apprehension of harm. The court found that while the applicant suffered grievous bodily harm, the incident did not involve a physical act as defined by the Act. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between acts that directly cause harm and those that result in harm indirectly or through other means. Given the statutory language and the specific circumstances, the court concluded that the act did not meet the threshold for an 'act of violence' under the Act. Consequently, the decision of the Senior Assessor was affirmed.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decision of the Senior Assessor dated 5 November 2020, upholding the Commissioner's determination that the incident did not constitute an act of violence. The applicant's application for review was dismissed.