Legal Research
Cases
Guy v Hampson

Guy v Hampson

Case [2019] WADC 19 18 February 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   GUY -v- HAMPSON [2019] WADC 19
CORAM:   BOWDEN DCJ
HEARD:   8 FEBRUARY 2019
DELIVERED          :   18 FEBRUARY 2019
FILE NO/S:   APP 76 of 2018
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2013
BETWEEN:   KEVIN JAMES GUY
Appellant

AND

ALBERT JOHN HAMPSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number             :   CIC 561/2018

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation appeal

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2013 (WA)

Result:

Compensation of $10,576 awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person (Ms J Black appeared as McKenzie Friend)
Respondent	:	Mr D G Powell
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr G J Stockton appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Western Legal
Amicus Curiae	:	State SolicItor for Western Australia

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

Bennett v The State of Western Australia (2012) 223 A Crim R 419
Chappell v Bowe [2006] WADC 29; (2006) 42 SR (WA) 143
CME [2018] WADC 69
Hampson [2018] WACIC 13
Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25; (2017) 91 SR (WA) 137
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported; WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980)
Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
M v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
Neall v Watson (1960) 34 ALJR 364
Nguyen v The Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation [2000] WADC 221
Pym v Richardson [2018] WADC 156
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

BOWDEN DCJ:

As at the 17 August 2017 Mr Hampson (the respondent) was approximately 74 years of age. The appellant Mr Guy was 37 years of age.
The material facts relating to the incident as stated to the Fremantle Magistrates Court on 18 December 2017 when Mr Guy pleaded guilty to common assault in circumstances of aggravation and unlawful damage are as follows:
At about 10 am on Thursday 17 August 2017 the accused (hereinafter referred to as Mr Guy) was on South Terrace in South Fremantle.
At this time Mr Guy observed Mr Hampson kicking out at a small dog. This dog had just bitten Mr Hampson on the leg and was attempting to bite him again.
Mr Guy did not observe the first bite and believed Mr Hampson was kicking at the dog maliciously.
Due to this he stopped his motor vehicle and approached Mr Hampson and grabbed him and adopted an aggressive stance. Mr Hampson tried to explain to Mr Guy what had happened and that he was 75 years old. However Mr Guy struck at Mr Hampson with both fists to the chest/collar bone area. Mr Guy was yelling at Mr Hampson telling him to apologise to the dog owner.
Mr Hampson walked off and took his mobile phone from his…

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 Guy v Hampson

Details

AGLC: Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Case: [2019] WADC 19
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Guy was awarded criminal injuries compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal (CIC) for injuries sustained during an assault. Hampson, the perpetrator of the assault, sought to appeal the compensation award on the basis that the CIC erred in its assessment of the severity of the injuries and the level of compensation awarded. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the CIC had correctly assessed the severity of the injuries and whether the compensation award was appropriate. The court was required to determine if the CIC's assessment was reasonable, whether there was any error in law, and if the compensation award was within the bounds of what was reasonable and appropriate.

The court found that the CIC had correctly assessed the severity of the injuries and the compensation award was reasonable and appropriate. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the CIC had considered all relevant factors and had made a decision that was not unreasonable. The severity of the injuries was correctly assessed, and the compensation award was within the bounds of what was reasonable and appropriate. The court found no error in law and dismissed the appeal. The compensation award made by the CIC was upheld.

The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed Hampson's appeal and affirmed the decision of the CIC. The court held that the CIC had correctly assessed the severity of the injuries and the compensation award was reasonable and appropriate. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders