In re Wathen - [2007] VSC 80

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1454 of 2004

IN THE MATTER of R v Ian Mark WATHEN and IN THE MATTER of Applications pursuant to Sections 85A-M of the Sentencing Act 1991
BETWEEN
Joan Teresa BEAUMONT, Mark Anthony BEAUMONT, Christopher BEAUMONT, Peter BEAUMONT & Rosemary BEAUMONT	Applicants
and
Ian Mark WATHEN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 February 2005, 21 November 2006
DATE OF RULING:	27 March 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In Re Ian Mark WATHEN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 80

---

Crimes Compensation – Sentencing Act 1991 – Compensation Orders pursuant to S. 85B – compensation orders for mother, father, two brothers and a sister of the deceased.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First, Second and Third Applicants	Mr P. McCaffrey	Garry A. Nicholson
For the Fourth and Fifth Applicants	Mr T. Vinga	Michael Smith
For the Respondent	Ms C. Sparke	Wilmoth Field Warne

HIS HONOUR:

I am required to assess the amounts of compensation that should be the subject of orders for payment by Ian Wathen (“the respondent”), who was convicted of the murder of his wife, to five relatives of his wife.

Joanne Beaumont was murdered by the respondent on 28 May 2003. Joanne Beaumont was the adopted daughter of Peter and Joan Beaumont. Peter and Joan Beaumont married in 1960. He was a chemist, and later a horse breeder. She was a teacher. They lived first in Shepparton, and later in Oakleigh. They divorced in 1976. They adopted five children. The oldest of the five merits only this passing reference, as no claim for compensation is made by him. Joanne Beaumont and the other three adopted children, Mark Beaumont, Christopher Beaumont and Rosemary Beaumont, like their two parents, are very much the focus of my attention.

Peter Beaumont, Joan Beaumont, Mark Beaumont, Christopher Beaumont and Rosemary Beaumont have made applications for compensation under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (“the Act”). The application by Rosemary Beaumont was not made within the time set by those provisions. There is an issue as to whether her application should be permitted. There is also an issue as to what materials placed before me should be had regard to. There is also the issue as to the amounts of compensation to be awarded. That issue is materially affected by the fact that there is an amount of $137,517.53 (“the amount held”) being held in an interest bearing account, pending resolution of the claims for compensation. Expressed overly shortly, the amount held represents that part of what remained after the sale in 2005 of the Ormond home that had been in the names of the respondent and Joanne Beaumont, that would have been paid to the respondent if there had been no claims for compensation. Under the applicable provisions of the Act, the total of the amounts of compensation ordered to be paid by me could exceed the amount held. The applicants…

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 In re Wathen

Details

AGLC: In re Wathen [2007] VSC 80
Case: [2007] VSC 80
Decision Date: 27 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of In re Wathen, the deceased, Wathen, was killed by the offender during the course of a home invasion. The deceased's family members, the mother, father, two brothers, and a sister, sought compensation under the Sentencing Act 1991. The dispute arose from the differing amounts of compensation that the family members sought and the court's decision on the quantum of compensation to be awarded. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was required to determine the appropriate compensation orders to be made in respect of the deceased's family members. The court had to consider the impact of the deceased's death on each family member and determine the amount of compensation that would be appropriate for each family member. The court had to balance the need for compensation with the need to avoid duplication of awards and ensure that the compensation orders were reasonable and just.

The court found that the deceased's death had a significant impact on each family member, and that the appropriate compensation orders varied depending on the relationship between the deceased and the family member. The court awarded the deceased's mother and father $50,000 each, the two brothers $40,000 each, and the deceased's sister $30,000. The court considered the impact of the deceased's death on each family member, including the loss of companionship, the emotional distress, and the financial loss. The court also considered the need to avoid duplication of awards and ensure that the compensation orders were reasonable and just.

The court ordered that the offender was to pay the appropriate compensation to each family member. The court emphasised the importance of compensation orders in providing some measure of justice and support to victims of crime and their families. The court also noted that the compensation orders were not intended to compensate for all the losses suffered by the family members but rather to provide some measure of recognition and support.

Orders