Iris Frank v Australian Capital Territory; Andreas Fokas v Australian Capital Territory; Andrew Michael Pinter v Australian Capital Territory; Erol Copelj by his next friend and mother Jasmin Copelj v Australian...

The cases before the Court involve appeals by Iris Frank, Andreas Fokas, Andrew Michael Pinter, and Erol Copelj (through his next friend and mother Jasmin Copelj) against the Australian Capital Territory, challenging the validity of legislative provisions that affect their eligibility for criminal injury compensation. The appellants had made applications for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 before the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Act 1999 came into force, which virtually repealed the Compensation Act. The Registrar awarded the appellants compensation but excluded any component for pain and suffering, in accordance with the new legislation. The appellants appealed the awards, arguing that the new legislative provisions are invalid under the Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Act 1988 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the provisions in question were invalid because they contravened the prohibition on the acquisition of property on unjust terms under the Self Government Act and whether they amounted to discrimination against people with disabilities under the Disability Discrimination Act. The Court found that the interests of the appellants in receiving compensation for pain and suffering were property under the Self Government Act, and their acquisition by the Territory was not on just terms. Consequently, the relevant provisions of the Financial Assistance Act were invalid. The Court also held that the Financial Assistance Act did not contravene the Disability Discrimination Act as it did not amount to discrimination against people with disabilities.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the awards of the Registrar, and remitted the proceedings to the Registrar to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to each appellant in light of these reasons. The Court granted a stay of proceedings for twenty-one days and ordered the respondent to pay the appellants' costs.