Lanyon v NTA and Staker

[2002] NTSC 6

Lanyon v NTA and Staker [2002] NTSC 6

PARTIES:RODNEY ALLAN LANYON

v

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

and

ANDREW WILLIAM STAKER

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FILE NO:LA 19 of 2001 (20010039)

DELIVERED:  10 January 2002

HEARING DATE:  21 December 2001

JUDGMENT OF:  BAILEY J

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:M Grant

First Respondent:  A Young

Second Respondent:  No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant:Hunt and Hunt

First Respondent:  Withnall Maley

Judgment category classification:      C

Judgment ID Number:  bai02002

Number of pages:  14

bai02002

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Lanyon v NTA and Staker [2002] NTSC 6
No. LA 19 of 2001 (20010039)

BETWEEN:

RODNEY ALLAN LANYON

Appellant

AND:

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

ANDREW WILLIAM STAKER

Second Respondent

CORAM:    BAILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 10 January 2002)

Background

1. On 12 September 2001, the appellant’s application for an assistance certificate under the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act was refused by the Local Court.  The appellant seeks to appeal the refusal to issue an assistance certificate on the grounds that the learned magistrate erred in law in that he:

   (a)misdirected himself as to matters required to establish contribution under s 10 of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act (“the Act”);

   (b)misdirected himself in accepting the appellant’s version of events but declining to issue an assistance certificate on the basis of s 10 of the Act;

   (c)wrongly concluded that the appellant was not entitled to an assistance certificate; and

   (d)wrongly concluded that the level of the appellant’s contribution to his own injury was 100%.

2. After refusing to issue an assistance certificate pursuant to s 10 of the Act, the learned magistrate indicated that if he had been minded to issue a certificate he would have specified an amount “in the area of $20,000” by way of assistance for the injury suffered by the appellant. Mr Young, who appeared on behalf of the first respondent, submitted that the learned magistrate’s refusal to issue an assistance certificate was correct in law. However, in the event that this Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to an assistance certificate, Mr Young conceded that an amount of $20,000 was an appropriate starting point for assessment of the amount to be provided by way of assistance for the injury suffered by the appellant. Mr Young further submitted that this amount should be reduced substantially having regard to the extent to which the appellant’s conduct contributed to his injury. Mr Grant, counsel for the appellant submitted that the figure of $20,000 was appropriate. In his submission, if there was to be any reduction on account of the appellant’s conduct, this should be limited to 10% to 15% of $20,000.

Findings by the Learned Magistrate

1. The learned magistrate found that the appellant was injured “much as he (the appellant) alleges”.  This finding was not based on the appellant’s evidence, but rather the evidence of Finn Mitchell, a friend of the appellant’s, who had witnessed part…