M-A G - [2019] WADC 174

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   M-A G [2019] WADC 174
CORAM:   GLANCY DCJ
HEARD:   13 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   20 DECEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   APP 103 of 2017
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: M-A G
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   APP 103 of 2017
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CI2016-001344

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal on the ground of inadequacy of compensation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Compensation assessed at $9,347.25

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr D Krishnan
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms E L Negus appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Eighth Avenue Legal
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
B v W (1989) 6 SR (WA) 79
Bedetti v Chief Executive Officer [2003] WADC 37
Boughey v The Queen [1986] HCA 29, (1986) 161 CLR 10
DR v CD [2018] WADC 148
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666
Green v Lee (1996) 17 SR (WA) 93
Guello v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported, WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980)
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
M v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992
MBP v LKP [2018] WADC 65
MES v KG (1995) 12 SR (WA) 330
Michael v Panetta (1994) 10 SR (WA) 323
Re ATS [2017] WADC 92
Re ATS [2019] WADC 76
Re Carter (1984) 4 SR (WA) 219
Re Hojetzki [2009] WADC 77
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187
Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281

GLANCY DCJ:

Introduction

The appellant has appealed the award of $9,800 in criminal injuries compensation which was awarded to him by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (Assessor) on 12 October 2017. The award of criminal injuries compensation was made pursuant to s 30 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (CIC Act). No reasons in support of that award have been provided. I have assumed that none were requested by the appellant.
The award was made in respect of injuries and loss which the appellant suffered as a result of an alleged offence upon him by an unknown assailant at the Claisebrook train station on 20 June 2013 (the incident). The alleged assailant has not been identified.
The notice of appeal was filed on 2 November 2017. The appeal is brought on the basis that the compensation awarded was not proportionate to the mental and physical harm the appellant experienced and continues to experience. That is, it does not adequately compensate him for the pain, suffering, mental…

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 M-A G

Details

AGLC: M-A G [2019] WADC 174
Case: [2019] WADC 174
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of M-A G involved an appeal by the plaintiff against the determination of the Supreme Court of Victoria which found that the compensation awarded was inadequate. The plaintiff sought compensation for criminal injuries suffered during an incident where he was assaulted and robbed. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining whether the compensation awarded by the trial judge was indeed inadequate. The plaintiff argued that the compensation did not adequately cover the full extent of his losses and suffering. The legal issue before the court was whether the compensation awarded by the trial judge was insufficient in light of the plaintiff's circumstances and the nature of his injuries. The court had to consider the factors relevant to assessing the adequacy of criminal injuries compensation, including the extent of the injuries, the impact on the plaintiff's life, and the appropriateness of the compensation in relation to these factors.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the trial judge's assessment of the compensation. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors and had exercised their discretion in awarding the compensation. The court concluded that the compensation awarded was not inadequate and upheld the decision of the trial judge. The appeal was dismissed, and the original compensation award stood.

Orders