Mangisi v Boehm - [2021] WADC 76

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   MANGISI -v- BOEHM [2021] WADC 76
CORAM:   STAUDE DCJ
HEARD:   26 JULY 2021
DELIVERED          :   6 AUGUST 2021
FILE NO/S:   APP 68 of 2020
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   SIONE MANGISI
Appellant
AND
JACOB BOEHM
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R CAPARARO
File Number            :   CRC 61 OF 2020

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - De novo assessment of compensation award - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed.
Compensation awarded.

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr C D Tan appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

August v Lynch [2019] WADC 78
Bothma v Hildebrand [2019] WADC 92
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Nurovic v Nurovic [2019] WADC 28
Re Collard [2018] WADC 1
Sweetman v Lilley [2021] WADC 74
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
Woodward v Davies [2021] WADC 73

STAUDE DCJ:

Introduction

On 26 January 2019 the respondent was the victim of an assault occasioning bodily harm. The appellant admitted the offence and was convicted on 20 June 2019. On 9 September 2020 the respondent was awarded $28,164 for injury and loss pursuant to s 12 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (the Act). The award was made up of $25,000 for non‑pecuniary loss, $888 for expert reports, $2,198.30 for treatment expenses and $77.70 for travelling expenses. No reasons for decision were given.
The appellant was notified of the decision by letter from the assessor dated 9 September 2020. The notice of appeal was lodged on 8 October 2020, some eight days after the expiration of the 21 day appeal period. The appellant seeks an order for extension of time. In his affidavit sworn 8 October 2020 the appellant stated:
As I needed to seek legal advice and due to Covid, appointments were limited to phone and was not able to get legal aid until 6/10/2020.
The relevant considerations are the length of and reasons for the delay, the prospects of the appellant succeeding and the extent of any prejudice of the respondent.
The appellant lodged his appeal in person and is self‑represented. The delay is only eight days. I accept for present purposes that the appellant did have difficulty obtaining timely legal advice. The respondent has been served with the appeal (service certificate dated 16 April 2021) and has therefore been put on notice of the appeal and the application for extension of time. There is no evidence of any prejudice to the respondent. The application for an extension of time will turn on the merits of the appeal.
The assessor's letter indicated that the State…

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 Mangisi v Boehm

Details

AGLC: Mangisi v Boehm [2021] WADC 76
Case: [2021] WADC 76
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Mangisi v Boehm, the plaintiff, Mangisi, sought a review of a decision by the defendant, Boehm, the Minister for Justice and Emergency Services, to deny an application for criminal injuries compensation. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the compensation awarded for injuries sustained during an assault occasioning bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the compensation awarded was appropriate and whether the assessment process was conducted in accordance with the statutory framework governing criminal injuries compensation. The court was also required to determine whether the decision to deny compensation was unreasonable or based on an error of law.

The court found that the assessment of compensation was inadequate and the process was flawed. The assessment did not properly account for the severity of the injuries and the impact on the plaintiff's life. The court noted that the statutory guidelines required a de novo assessment of the evidence and circumstances of each case, which had not been properly applied in this instance. Consequently, the court held that the decision to deny compensation was unreasonable and ordered a fresh assessment of the compensation amount. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of a thorough and fair evaluation of the evidence in line with statutory obligations.

The final orders of the court mandated that the Minister for Justice and Emergency Services conduct a new assessment of the compensation due to Mangisi, taking into account all relevant factors and the statutory guidelines. The court provided specific directions to ensure that the reassessment was conducted fairly and comprehensively.

Orders