ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :R GUTHRIE
File No  :CI 1562 of 2014, CI 1563 of 2014, CI 1564 of 2014, CI 1803 of 2014

Catchwords:

Appeals - Criminal injuries compensation - Proved offences - Alleged offences - Mental and nervous shock - Separate offence committed by respondent at time respondent allegedly injured as consequence of proved offence - Behaviour of respondent contributing to proved offence - Assessment of award

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
District Court Rules 2005(WA)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Award reduced

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     In person
Respondent:     Ms M Aranda
Amicus Curiae                   :    Mr W Fitt appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Not applicable
Respondent:     Gosnells Community Centre Inc
Amicus Curiae                   :    State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
Asjes v Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (1994) 11 SR (WA) 226
Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
B v S (Unreported, WASC, Library No 950223, 10 May 1995)
B v W (1989) 6 SR (WA) 79
BAS v The Estate of NAS [2000] WASCA 270
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
BT v BT [2014] WADC 166
CKM [2008] WADC 79
Curran v Champion [2012] WADC 9
De Florenca v Hayden [2007] WADC 54
Dunne [2014] WADC 131
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666
Garton v McCormack [2002] WADC 111; (2002) 30 SR (WA) 307
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
In the Marriage of Bateman and Patterson (1981) 51 FLR 263
Lloyd v Small (1996) 16 SR (WA) 111
M and M [2014] FCWAM 75
M v J and J v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638
Martin [2015] WACIC 14
McDavitt v McDavitt [No 2] [2013] WADC 198
MJN v MAJS [2003] WACC 9; (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Nominal Defendant v Owens (1978) 22 ALR 128
Prideaux v Chief Executive Officer [2000] WADC 143; (2000) 24 SR (WA) 240
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164

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 Martin v Martin

Details

AGLC: Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138
Case: [2015] WADC 138
Decision Date: 27 NOVEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the applicant, Martin, seeking to increase the compensation awarded to him for criminal injuries sustained from offences committed by the respondent, Martin. The applicant had been awarded $25,000 in compensation by the County Court for injuries arising from offences committed by the respondent. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court seeking an increase in the compensation amount. The appeal was heard by Justice Ferguson. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's injuries were caused by the proved offence, whether the applicant's own behaviour contributed to his injuries, and whether the respondent's separate offence at the time of the injury should be considered in the assessment of compensation. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties and determined that the applicant's injuries were indeed caused by the proved offence. The court found that the applicant's behaviour did not contribute to the injuries, and that the respondent's separate offence should be considered in the assessment of compensation. The court increased the compensation award to $50,000, taking into account the respondent's behaviour and the separate offence. The court held that the applicant was entitled to an increased compensation award, and ordered that the compensation be paid to the applicant in accordance with the court's decision.

Orders