MINITER -v- BOLTON [2014] WADC 135

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 135
Case No:	APP:67/2013	Heard:	11 MARCH 2014
Coram:	STAUDE DCJ	Delivered:	9/10/14
Location:	ALBANY
No of pages:	22	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time granted Appeal allowed Compensation awarded
PDF Version

Parties:	GRANTLEY JOHN MINITER WAYNE BOLTON SHARNA SMITH
Catchwords:	Criminal injuries compensation Appeal Extension of time to appeal Whether applicant was committing a separate offence at time of injury Whether conduct of applicant contributed to injury Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 s 39, s 41
Case References:	Attorney General of Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinger Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 96 G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479 Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Krajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

LOCATION : ALBANY CITATION : MINITER -v- BOLTON [2014] WADC 135 CORAM : STAUDE DCJ HEARD : 11 MARCH 2014 DELIVERED : 9 OCTOBER 2014 FILE NO/S : APP 67 of 2013 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

AND

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN : GRANTLEY JOHN MINITER

Appellant

AND

WAYNE BOLTON

SHARNA SMITH

Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : R GUTHRIE

File No : CI 000372 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Extension of time to appeal - Whether applicant was committing a separate offence at time of injury - Whether conduct of applicant contributed to injury - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 s 39, s 41

Result:

Extension of time granted

Appeal allowed
Compensation awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R Hickson

Respondents : No appearance

Amicus Curiae

: Mr J Winton appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant : Family Violence Prevention Legal Service

Respondents : Not applicable

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Attorney General of Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinger Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 96
G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Krajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449

STAUDE DCJ

Introduction

1 Mr Miniter was injured in an affray at Gnowangerup on 2 January 2010. The injuries were principally to his face and head.

2 The respondents were charged with and convicted of offences in relation to Mr Miniter's injuries. Sharna Smith was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm and Wayne Bolton…

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 Miniter v Bolton

Details

AGLC: Miniter v Bolton [2014] WADC 135
Case: [2014] WADC 135
Decision Date: 9 OCTOBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Miniter v Bolton, the case came before the court to determine the eligibility of the applicant for criminal injuries compensation. The applicant, who had suffered injuries during an incident involving law enforcement officers, sought an extension of time to appeal a previous decision denying compensation. A significant dispute arose regarding whether the applicant was involved in a separate unlawful activity at the time of the injury and whether his conduct contributed to the incident. The court was required to examine the relevant facts and the legal principles governing criminal injuries compensation and the extension of time for appeals.

The primary legal issues before the court involved interpreting the statutory provisions and case law concerning criminal injuries compensation, specifically whether the applicant's actions at the time of the incident disqualified him from receiving compensation. The court had to consider whether the applicant's involvement in another unlawful act at the time of the injury meant he could not claim compensation for the injuries sustained during the incident in question. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the applicant's conduct contributed to his injury in a way that would negate his eligibility for compensation.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the applicant's involvement in the separate unlawful activity did not, in itself, disqualify him from receiving criminal injuries compensation. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that the applicant's conduct did not contribute to the injury in a way that would negate his eligibility for compensation. Consequently, the court granted the extension of time to appeal and allowed the appeal. The court awarded the applicant compensation, finding that he met the criteria under the statutory provisions for criminal injuries compensation.

The final orders of the court included granting the applicant an extension of time to appeal the previous decision. The court allowed the appeal and awarded the applicant compensation for the injuries sustained during the incident. The decision highlighted the importance of assessing each case on its own merits and underscored the principle that involvement in separate unlawful activities does not automatically disqualify an applicant from receiving compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time granted

Appeal allowed

Compensation awarded

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.