MATTHEWS [2017] WADC 126

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2017] WADC 126
Case No:	APP:111/2016	Heard:	9 JUNE 2017
Coram:	WAGER DCJ	Delivered:	22/09/17
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	$55,975.75 awarded to the appellant
PDF Version

Parties:	STEVEN MATTHEWS
Catchwords:	Criminal law Criminal injuries compensation Appeal Whether evidence sufficient to satisfy the court that the appellant by his behaviour contributed to the injuries suffered Deduction for compensation already received Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)
Case References:	Baker v Stone [2015] WASCA 56 Cooper v Smith (Cooper) [2017] WADC 82 Liddiard [2008] WACIC 59 MW v CW [2001] WADC 234

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : MATTHEWS [2017] WADC 126 CORAM : WAGER DCJ HEARD : 9 JUNE 2017 DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2017 FILE NO/S : APP 111 of 2016 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

AND

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN : STEVEN MATTHEWS

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HL PORTER

File No : CI 1631 of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Whether evidence sufficient to satisfy the court that the appellant by his behaviour contributed to the injuries suffered - Deduction for compensation already received - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

$55,975.75 awarded to the appellant

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr C Foyle

Amicus Curiae

: Mr SP Tomasich

Solicitors:

Appellant : Foyle Legal

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitors Office

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

Baker v Stone [2015] WASCA 56
Cooper v Smith (Cooper) [2017] WADC 82
Liddiard [2008] WACIC 59
MW v CW [2001] WADC 234

1 WAGER DCJ: The appellant appeals against the assessor's award of $37,500 made pursuant to s 30 Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) in respect of injuries he suffered as a result of an alleged offence committed on 15 August 2010.

2 No person has been charged with the commission of the alleged offence that arose from an altercation between two groups in East Perth in the early hours of 15 August 2010 when the appellant was struck over the head with a concrete paver, causing him to suffer serious injuries.

3 The grounds of appeal are:

1. The chief assessor of criminal injuries compensation (CIC) erred in reducing the appellant's compensation by 50% for contributory behaviour.

2. The chief assessor of CIC erred in making findings of fact based on CCTV footage in circumstances where the appellant had not been given the opportunity to view and comment on that footage.

3. The chief assessor of CIC erred in finding the appellant first engaged 'Mr C verbally, pointing to the appellant's finger and causing Mr C to step back'.

4. The chief assessor of CIC erred in finding that as…

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 MATTHEWS

Details

AGLC: MATTHEWS [2017] WADC 126
Case: [2017] WADC 126
Decision Date: 22 SEPTEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews sought to appeal against the decision of the criminal injuries compensation tribunal, which had awarded him $55,975.75 in compensation for injuries sustained during an altercation. Matthews contested both the amount awarded and the tribunal's finding that his own behaviour had contributed to his injuries. The tribunal had also deducted from the compensation amount the sum that Matthews had already received from a third party. The court was required to determine whether the tribunal's decision was legally sound, particularly in relation to the evidence presented regarding Matthews' conduct and the appropriate level of compensation.

The court examined the evidence presented to the tribunal concerning Matthews' behaviour during the incident and whether it was sufficient to justify the finding that Matthews had contributed to his own injuries. The court also considered whether the tribunal had erred in deducting the amount already received by Matthews from the compensation awarded. The court noted that the tribunal's decision to deduct the compensation received from a third party was permissible under the statutory provisions governing criminal injuries compensation. However, the court held that the tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence relating to Matthews' conduct and that this error had resulted in an undercompensation of Matthews for his injuries.

Having found that the tribunal had erred in its assessment of Matthews' conduct, the court ordered that the tribunal's decision be set aside and that Matthews be awarded the full amount of $55,975.75 in compensation, without any deduction for the compensation already received. The court also noted that Matthews was not entitled to any additional compensation for the period of time between the incident and the tribunal's decision, as this was not provided for under the statutory scheme governing criminal injuries compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

$55,975.75 awarded to the appellant

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.