Murray v Commissioner of Victims Rights - [2025] NSWCATAD 233

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Murray v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 233
Hearing dates: 15 August 2025
Date of orders: 22 September 2025
Decision date: 22 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:
The restitution order is confirmed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – merits review – Victims Rights and Support – restitution order against person convicted of relevant offence – whether the order for restitution under s 67(2A) of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) was made within time

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Cumbamani v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 386
Cumbamani v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2023] NSWCATAP 118
Delaney v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 229
FVK v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] NSWCATAD 118
Sewell v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 44
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown (2003) 77 ALJR 1797

Texts Cited:
None

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kane Murray (Applicant)
Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self Represented)
K Douch, Victims Services (Respondent):

File Number(s): 2025/00176415
Publication restriction: Not applicable

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

The applicant applied to this Tribunal for administrative review of a Determination of Objection in relation to a restitution order that was made on 17 April 2025 by the Commissioner of Victims Rights (the respondent) under the terms of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) (the Act).

Victims support approved for the victim

On 2 September 2022, an Assessor approved victims support for the victim in the sum of $6,500, which represented a category D recognition payment and financial assistance for immediate needs in the amount of $5,000, arising from an assault that occurred in NSW between 1 April 2019 and 20 November 2019.

The defendant was convicted of a relevant offence

Court records indicate that the applicant was arrested and charged with Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic) against the victim and that he was convicted in the Local Court of NSW on 12 August 2020.

Order for restitution

On 8 October 2024, the respondent issued an Order for restitution to the applicant pursuant to Part 5 of the Act, which required him to pay restitution in the amount of $6,500. This represented the full amount of victims support that was approved for the victim.

Grounds of objection and evidence in support

On 17 November 2024, the applicant lodged an Objection to the restitution order. He filed submissions in support of the objection, which include the following: (1) The restitution order was issued out of time; (2) He was convicted under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act; (3) The actions and behaviour of the victim; and (4) Financial difficulties.

Determination of Objection

On 7 April 2025, an Assessor issued a Notice of Determination of…

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 Murray v Commissioner of Victims Rights

Details

AGLC: Murray v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 233
Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 233
Decision Date: 22 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Murray v Commissioner of Victims Rights, the applicant, Murray, sought to challenge the decision of the Commissioner of Victims Rights, who refused to order the respondent, a person convicted of an offence, to pay restitution to the applicant. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the Commissioner's decision to reject the application for a restitution order was lawful and justified. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the order for restitution under section 67(2A) of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) was made within the stipulated time limits.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the procedural history of the case. It considered the timeliness of Murray's application for a restitution order and the Commissioner's assessment of whether the order fell within the prescribed timeframe. The court also reviewed the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances of the offence and the applicant's victimisation. After carefully considering the arguments and the applicable law, the court found that the Commissioner's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the Commissioner correctly determined that the application for restitution was not made within the statutory time limit and, therefore, upheld the decision to reject the application.

Consequently, the court dismissed Murray's appeal and confirmed the Commissioner's decision. The restitution order was not granted as it was determined to be outside the permissible timeframe under the Act. The court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in making applications for restitution under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW).

Orders

Orders of the court

The restitution order is confirmed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Murray v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2025] NSWCATAD 233
Hearing dates:	15 August 2025
Date of orders:	22 September 2025
Decision date:	22 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	The restitution order is confirmed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – merits review – Victims Rights and Support – restitution order against person convicted of relevant offence – whether the order for restitution under s 67(2A) of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) was made within time
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Fines Act 1996 (NSW) Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Cumbamani v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 386 Cumbamani v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2023] NSWCATAP 118 Delaney v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 229 FVK v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] NSWCATAD 118 Sewell v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 44 Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown (2003) 77 ALJR 1797
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Kane Murray (Applicant) Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (Self Represented) K Douch, Victims Services (Respondent):
File Number(s):	2025/00176415
Publication restriction:	Not applicable