McDavitt v McDavitt

The appeal arose from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in which the appellant sought a criminal injuries compensation award. The appellant had been shot by a police officer while committing an armed robbery. She claimed that the shooting caused her injuries and sought compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant's claim was barred by section 39 of the Act, which provides that a person is not entitled to compensation if they were engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the injury, and their conduct was not excused by the law of provocation. The court had to determine whether the appellant's conduct was excused by provocation, and if not, whether she was nonetheless entitled to compensation.

The court held that the appellant's conduct was not excused by the law of provocation. The court found that the appellant had not acted in response to a provocative act by the police officer, but rather had acted with premeditation and deliberation. The court also found that the appellant's conduct was not excused by any other legal defence, such as duress or necessity. The court held that the appellant was therefore not entitled to compensation under section 39 of the Act. However, the court found that the appellant's claim turned on its own facts, and that the appellant's conduct did not fall within the scope of section 39. The court therefore allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for determination of the appellant's claim on its merits.

The court held that the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further consideration of the appellant's claim. The court found that the appellant's conduct was not excused by the law of provocation, and that she was therefore not entitled to compensation under section 39 of the Act. However, the court held that the appellant's claim turned on its own facts, and that the appellant's conduct did not fall within the scope of section 39. The court found that the appellant's claim should be determined on its merits, and that the Supreme Court should reconsider the matter in light of the court's decision.