Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: FRL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2023] NSWCATAD 131 Hearing dates: 12 May 2023 Date of orders: 01 June 2023 Decision date: 01 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Riordan, Senior Member Decision: 1. The respondent’s decision dated 15 November 2022 is set aside and by way of substitution, I determine that:
a. FLR is eligible for victims support;
b. FLR is the primary victim of an act of violence, which is a series of related acts of violence.
2. The matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration pursuant to s 65(1) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) according to law.
3. I order that the matter be listed for directions, on a date to be fixed by the Registrar which is not less than three (3) months from the date of this decision.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – Victims rights and support – eligibility for victims support
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Saleh v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation [2012] NSWDC 217
Texts Cited: None
Category: Principal judgment Parties: FRL (Applicant)
Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)Representation: FRL’s Mother (Agent)(Applicant)
Victim Services (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00016659 Publication restriction: Section 64 (1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – Restriction on publication of information that will identify any victims or evidence given and received in this Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
-
These proceedings relate to three (3) applications for victims support in the form of counselling, financial assistance for immediate needs and/or economic loss and a recognition payment lodged by the agent of the applicant known by the pseudonym FRL initially before the Commissioner of Victims’ Rights (“the Respondent”).
-
The applications were lodged under the provisions of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) (the Act) in September 2022 (the actual date of lodgement are not indicated in the documents before me). FRL alleged that he was the primary victim of an act of violence in the nature of an assault that occurred at Leeton, in New South Wales, on 1 July 2022 and that he suffered “physical injuries” (including dental injuries)” and “psychological injury” as a result.
-
I note that in relation to the claim for financial assistance, FRL claimed medical treatment expenses totalling $720, dental treatment expenses totalling $1,315, loss of actual earnings in the sum of $3,000, $210 for loss of personal effects, $2,324 for security cameras and out-of-pocket expenses (travel expenses) totalling $450.
-
I further note that the following provision was contained in the Application for…
Continue reading FRL v Commissioner of Victims Rights
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- FRL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2023] NSWCATAD 131
- Case
- [2023] NSWCATAD 131
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address were primarily concerned with the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions governing eligibility for victims support. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Commissioner's decision was legally sound and whether FRL met the criteria for being recognised as the primary victim of a series of related acts of violence. The court had to examine the evidence presented and determine whether the Commissioner had correctly interpreted and applied the law in making the decision.
The court found that the Commissioner's decision was flawed in several respects. The court held that the Commissioner had failed to properly consider the evidence presented by FRL and had not adequately addressed the question of whether FRL was the primary victim of a series of related acts of violence. The court also found that the Commissioner had not properly applied the relevant statutory provisions in making the decision. As a result, the court set aside the Commissioner's decision and substituted its own decision that FRL was eligible for victims support and was the primary victim of a series of related acts of violence. The matter was then remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
The court ordered that the matter be listed for directions, to be fixed by the Registrar at a date no less than three months from the date of the decision. This allowed the parties time to prepare for the reconsideration of the matter by the Commissioner. The court also ordered that the Commissioner's decision be set aside and that FRL was eligible for victims support and was the primary victim of a series of related acts of violence. This decision provided FRL with the opportunity to receive the support to which they were legally entitled.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent’s decision dated 15 November 2022 is set aside and by way of substitution, I determine that:
a. FLR is eligible for victims support;
b. FLR is the primary victim of an act of violence, which is a series of related acts of violence.
2. The matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration pursuant to s 65(1) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) according to law.
3. I order that the matter be listed for directions, on a date to be fixed by the Registrar which is not less than three (3) months from the date of this decision.
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.