Hansen v Bolton

Case [2017] WADC 25


HANSEN -v- BOLTON [2017] WADC 25



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2017] WADC 25
Case No:APP:30/201618, 25 & 31 JANUARY 2017
Coram:HERRON DCJ27/02/17
PERTH
40Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed and compensation awarded
PDF Version
Parties:LAWRENCE MAXWELL HANSEN
GRAHAM BOLTON

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation
Shooting incident
Secondary victim
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Delay
Whether a separate offence committed

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 s 9, s 35(2)(c), s 39(1)(b)
Liquor Control Act 1988

Case References:

Devos v James [2009] WADC 161
Hutching v Lachlan [2012] WADC 89
JY [2013] WADC 187
MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219
PK [2013] WACIC 24
Re Jackamarra [2014] WADC 9
Re McHenry [2014] WADC 92
Re PK (by her next friend the Public Trustee) [2014] WADC 139
Re TLJ [2016] WADC 74
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187
Zadeh [2015] WADC 136


JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CRIMINAL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : HANSEN -v- BOLTON [2017] WADC 25 CORAM : HERRON DCJ HEARD : 18, 25 & 31 JANUARY 2017 DELIVERED : 27 FEBRUARY 2017 FILE NO/S : APP 30 of 2016 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 BETWEEN : LAWRENCE MAXWELL HANSEN
    Appellant

    AND

    GRAHAM BOLTON
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : ASSESSOR L V DEMPSEY

File No : CI 2501 of 2014


Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Shooting incident - Secondary victim – Post-traumatic stress disorder - Delay - Whether a separate offence committed

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 s 9, s 35(2)(c), s 39(1)(b)


Liquor Control Act 1988

Result:

Appeal allowed and compensation awarded


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr V Kurup (18 January 2017) & Mr N Morrisey (25 & 31) January 2017

    Respondent : No appearance



    Amicus Curiae : Mr G Stockton appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer for the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

    Appellant : CLP Legal Pty Ltd
    Respondent : Not applicable

    Amicus Curiae : State Solicitors for Western Australia


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

Devos v James [2009] WADC 161
Hutching v Lachlan [2012] WADC 89
JY [2013] WADC 187
MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219
PK [2013] WACIC 24
Re Jackamarra [2014] WADC 9
Re McHenry [2014] WADC 92
Re PK (by her next friend the Public Trustee) [2014] WADC 139
Re TLJ [2016] WADC 74
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187
Zadeh [2015] WADC 136
    HERRON DCJ:




Background

1 On 8 April 2016 the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation Ms L V Dempsey (the assessor) refused the appellant's (Mr Hansen) application for criminal injuries compensation in respect of injuries and losses suffered by Mr Hansen as a result of the respondent (Mr Bolton) committing the offence of intent to maim by unlawful wounding. The application was refused pursuant to s 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation…

Continue reading Hansen v Bolton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25
Case
[2017] WADC 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hansen v Bolton involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the appellant, Hansen, to receive criminal injuries compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a shooting incident. Hansen, who was present at the scene but not physically injured, sought compensation for secondary victim PTSD. The matter was before the court to determine whether Hansen's claim was barred due to delay in reporting the condition and whether the shooting incident constituted a separate offence that would affect his eligibility for compensation.

The court was required to decide if Hansen's claim for compensation was valid despite the delay in reporting his PTSD symptoms. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the shooting incident constituted a single offence or multiple offences, as this could impact Hansen's eligibility for compensation. The court had to consider the statutory provisions governing criminal injuries compensation, particularly the requirement for timely reporting of injuries and the definition of "incurring injury".

The court found that Hansen's PTSD was a direct result of the shooting incident and that the delay in reporting did not bar his claim, as there were mitigating circumstances. The court concluded that the shooting incident constituted a single offence, thus not affecting Hansen's eligibility for compensation. The court held that Hansen was entitled to compensation for his secondary victim PTSD. The appeal was allowed, and Hansen was awarded the compensation he sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed and compensation awarded

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.