Hunt v Akkus
Case
•
[2017] VSC 79
•7 March 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hunt v Akkus [2017] VSC 79
[2017] VSC 79
7 March 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Ms Hunt, sought to apply for an extension of time to make an application for a compensation order under the Sentencing Act 1991 in relation to the murder of her sister by the respondent, Mr Akkus. The application was made to the County Court of Victoria. The court had to decide whether to grant an extension of time for the application and whether the application for a compensation order should be made, considering the delay in making the application and the potential prejudice to the respondent's rehabilitation.
The court found that the delay in making the application was significant but did not find it to be an insurmountable obstacle to the applicant's claim. The court considered the principles in Moresco & Ors v Budimir and Marceta v Efandis and held that the delay did not prejudice the respondent's rehabilitation. The court also considered the applicant's financial circumstances and the potential impact of the compensation order on the respondent. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for the compensation order and that it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time for the application.
The court granted the application for an extension of time and ordered that the application for a compensation order be made within a specified timeframe. The court found that the delay in making the application did not prejudice the respondent's rehabilitation and that the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for the compensation order. The court also found that the respondent's financial circumstances were not a sufficient reason to deny the applicant's claim for compensation.
The court's final orders were that the applicant be granted an extension of time to make the application for a compensation order and that the application be made within a specified timeframe. The court also ordered that the respondent be given notice of the application and that the application be heard as soon as practicable.
The court found that the delay in making the application was significant but did not find it to be an insurmountable obstacle to the applicant's claim. The court considered the principles in Moresco & Ors v Budimir and Marceta v Efandis and held that the delay did not prejudice the respondent's rehabilitation. The court also considered the applicant's financial circumstances and the potential impact of the compensation order on the respondent. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for the compensation order and that it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time for the application.
The court granted the application for an extension of time and ordered that the application for a compensation order be made within a specified timeframe. The court found that the delay in making the application did not prejudice the respondent's rehabilitation and that the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for the compensation order. The court also found that the respondent's financial circumstances were not a sufficient reason to deny the applicant's claim for compensation.
The court's final orders were that the applicant be granted an extension of time to make the application for a compensation order and that the application be made within a specified timeframe. The court also ordered that the respondent be given notice of the application and that the application be heard as soon as practicable.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Compensation Orders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hunt v Akkus [2017] VSC 79
Most Recent Citation
Applicant v Barker (a pseudonym) (Ruling) [2025] VCC 770
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Paulino v Paulino
[2020] VSC 642
St Clair and Holmes v Jamieson
[2019] VSC 57
Applicant v Barker (a pseudonym) (Ruling)
[2025] VCC 770
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
R v Akkus
[2006] VSC 264
R v Akkus
[2007] VSCA 287
Transport Accident Commission v Billett
[2004] VSC 406