In the matter of an application by Julian Knight under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT)

In the matter of an application by Julian Knight under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT), the Federal Circuit Court was tasked with determining whether an application for compensation or an application to extend time to make such an application could only be heard in the Magistrates Court. This decision followed the enactment of the transitional provisions in the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act 1999 (ACT) and addressed the meaning of “undetermined application” within the context of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT) and the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT).

The court was required to decide several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to interpret the transitional provisions in the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act 1999 (ACT) to ascertain whether they effectively restricted the hearing of criminal injuries compensation applications to the Magistrates Court. Secondly, the court needed to determine whether the amendment of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT) affected any rights, privileges, or liabilities acquired, accrued, or incurred under that Act to make an application, and whether any contrary intention was demonstrated by the legislation. Lastly, the court needed to consider whether the entitlement to make an application for criminal injuries compensation constituted property for the purposes of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) s 23(1)(a).

The court, in dismissing the proceedings, found that the transitional provisions in the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act 1999 (ACT) did indeed limit the jurisdiction to hear criminal injuries compensation applications to the Magistrates Court. The court held that the amendment to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT) did affect a right, privilege, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under that Act, but found no contrary intention demonstrated by the legislation. Additionally, the court concluded that the entitlement to make an application for criminal injuries compensation did not constitute property for the purposes of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) s 23(1)(a). As a result, the proceedings were dismissed with no order as to costs.