GTP v Commissioner of Victims Rights - [2025] NSWCATAD 128

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: GTP v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 128
Hearing dates: 14 March 2025
Date of orders: 04 June 2025
Decision date: 04 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J McAteer, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) In proceedings 2024/00333385 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.
(2) In proceedings 2024/00452724 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.
(3) In proceedings 2024/00452751 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.
(4) In proceedings 2024/00452752 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.

Catchwords:
VICTIMS Support – Administrative law – act of violence – single act of violence as series of related acts -whether evidence satisfied elements of act of violence being treated as separate acts– whether medical evidence verifies injury arising from series of acts –- related acts – unelated acts – circumstances of acts of violence

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013
Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (repealed)

Cases Cited:
GCL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2024] NSWCATAD 200
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v JM [2011] NSWCA 89

Texts Cited:
Second Reading Speech 24 November 2010 Hon John Hatzistergos Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Act 2010
Chairpersons Report Victims Compensation Tribunal October 2008 Victims Services NSW Attorney General’s Department

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: ‘GTP’ (Applicant)
Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Clayton Utz Solicitors (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00333385
2024/00452724
2024/00452751
2024/00452752
Publication restriction: S 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the identity of the applicant.

Reasons for decision

Introduction

The applicant made claims to the Commissioner of Victims Rights seeking recognition payments under the victims of crime scheme. The applicant asserts that she is a victim of violent crime and has suffered injury as a result. The victims of crime scheme provides that eligible victims may recover financial grants or payments and access to the provision of services under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (the Act).
In order to be eligible to recover under the scheme, a victim must either be a primary victim (the victim of an assault), or a secondary victim or family victim. As will be explained in these reasons, victims of crime must pass through various factual thresholds as set out in the Legislation in order to receive benefits under the scheme. In the…

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 GTP v Commissioner of Victims Rights

Details

AGLC: GTP v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 128
Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 128
Decision Date: 04 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an applicant, GTP, who was seeking a Category B recognition payment from the Commissioner of Victims Rights. The Commissioner had previously denied the application on the grounds that the acts of violence experienced by GTP did not meet the criteria for a Category B recognition payment. The dispute was brought before the court to determine whether the Commissioner's decision was legally sound. The central legal issues revolved around whether the acts of violence experienced by GTP could be considered as a series of related acts, and if the medical evidence provided sufficiently verified the injuries arising from these acts. The court had to examine the nature of the acts of violence and their relationship to each other, as well as the adequacy of the medical evidence in supporting the applicant's claims.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the legislative framework governing the recognition payments. It found that the acts of violence experienced by GTP were indeed a series of related acts, as they were part of a continuous pattern of abuse. The court also concluded that the medical evidence provided was sufficient to substantiate the injuries claimed. The Commissioner's decision was therefore flawed as it did not properly consider the evidence in relation to the legal criteria for a Category B recognition payment. Based on this reasoning, the court decided to set aside the Commissioner's decision and substituted it with a decision that GTP is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.

The court's detailed analysis and findings led to the issuance of specific orders. The court set aside the Commissioner's decision in four separate proceedings, namely 2024/00333385, 2024/00452724, 2024/00452751, and 2024/00452752. In each case, the court substituted the Commissioner's decision with a ruling that GTP is entitled to a Category B recognition payment. These orders reflect the court's determination that the Commissioner's original decisions were not legally justified, given the evidence and the applicable legal standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) In proceedings 2024/00333385 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.

(2) In proceedings 2024/00452724 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.

(3) In proceedings 2024/00452751 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.

(4) In proceedings 2024/00452752 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	GTP v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 128
Hearing dates:	14 March 2025
Date of orders:	04 June 2025
Decision date:	04 June 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	J McAteer, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) In proceedings 2024/00333385 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment. (2) In proceedings 2024/00452724 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment. (3) In proceedings 2024/00452751 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment. (4) In proceedings 2024/00452752 the decision of the respondent of 13 August 2024 is set aside. In substitution of that decision the Applicant is entitled to a Category B recognition payment.
Catchwords:	VICTIMS Support – Administrative law – act of violence – single act of violence as series of related acts -whether evidence satisfied elements of act of violence being treated as separate acts– whether medical evidence verifies injury arising from series of acts –- related acts – unelated acts – circumstances of acts of violence
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (repealed)
Cases Cited:	GCL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2024] NSWCATAD 200 Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54 Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v JM [2011] NSWCA 89
Texts Cited:	Second Reading Speech 24 November 2010 Hon John Hatzistergos Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Act 2010 Chairpersons Report Victims Compensation Tribunal October 2008 Victims Services NSW Attorney General’s Department
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	‘GTP’ (Applicant) Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Clayton Utz Solicitors (Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00333385 2024/00452724 2024/00452751 2024/00452752
Publication restriction:	S 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the identity of the applicant.