Jones v Australian Capital Territory

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Jones v Australian Capital Territory

Citation:

[2019] ACTMC 34

Hearing Date:

18 September 2019

DecisionDate:

27 November 2019

Before:

Special Magistrate McCarthy

Decision:

The application for financial assistance is dismissed.

Catchwords:

CIVIL LAW – application for special assistance under Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT) – whether applicant was engaged in the commission of a serious crime or a minor crime at the time the injuries were sustained – whether applicant suffered “an extremely serious injury” – meaning of “extremely serious injury” – legislative test relates to the results of, not seriousness of, injury sustained – evidence does not prove on the balance of probabilities that impairment or disfigurement resulted in a great and permanent reduction in quality of applicant’s life or was otherwise extremely serious

Legislation Cited:

Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT) ss 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 31, 37, 38

Cases Cited:

Australian Capital Territory v Kristaps Fridemanis [2017] ACTMC 13

Edwards v Police (1998) 71 SASR 493

In the matter of Bryce James Miller (Unreported, Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns CM, 29 April 2011)

In the matter of James Moudakis (Unreported, Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Dingwall M, 6 May 2014)

James Moudakis & Theodore Moudakis v Australian Capital Territory (Unreported, Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Madden M, 31 May 2007)

Texts Cited:

Explanatory Statement, Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 1998 (ACT)

Mirko Bagaric, Ross on Crime (Lawbook, 8th ed, 2018)

Parties:

Stephen Michael Jones (Applicant)

Australian Capital Territory (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

P Edmonds (Applicant)

L Pierce (Respondent)

Solicitors

Paul Edmonds & Associates (Applicant)

ACT Government Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number:

CI 99 of 2015

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE McCARTHY:

  1. By application dated 9 March 2016, following the grant of an extension of time to bring the application, the applicant – Stephen Jones – applied for financial assistance under the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT) (the Act) for injuries he sustained on 21 August 2014. The Act was repealed with effect from 1 July 2016, but there is no dispute that Mr Jones’ application remains to be decided under the Act in circumstances where it was filed prior to repeal.

  1. As best as I can ascertain, the application languished for more than three years until Mr Jones’ solicitor, Mr Edmonds, sent an email to the Court requesting a hearing date. I heard the matter on 18 September 2019. Mr Edmonds appeared for Mr Jones. Ms Pierce appeared for the Territory.

Background

  1. The application was made by reference to the following facts, none of which was disputed.

  1. On 21 August 2014, Mr Jones took a friend who I will refer to in my reasons as Ms Smith[1] to a residential unit in Ainslie to see a mutual friend, Mr Price, who lived there. Mr Jones was at the unit for approximately 10 minutes before returning to his own home in Braddon.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v Australian Capital Territory and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] ACTMC 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones lodged an application for financial assistance under the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT). The applicant sustained injuries while committing a crime, and the central dispute was whether the injury sustained was "extremely serious" and whether the applicant was involved in a serious crime or a minor one at the time. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The court had to determine two primary legal issues. The first was whether the injury suffered by the applicant was extremely serious, as defined by the Act. The second was whether the applicant was involved in a serious crime or a minor one at the time the injuries were sustained. The court had to interpret the term "extremely serious injury" and examine the evidence presented to determine if it met the criteria set out in the Act.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that it did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the applicant's impairment or disfigurement resulted in a great and permanent reduction in the quality of their life. The court found that the legislative test for an extremely serious injury relates to the results of the injury, not its severity. The court determined that the applicant was involved in the commission of a minor crime at the time of the injuries, further impacting the eligibility for financial assistance.

The application for financial assistance was dismissed, as the court found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for an extremely serious injury under the Act. Additionally, the court found that the applicant was involved in a minor crime at the time of the injuries, which was another factor against the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for financial assistance is dismissed.

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.