Legal Research
Cases
Nurovic v Nurovic

Nurovic v Nurovic

Case [2019] WADC 28 8 March 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   NUROVIC -v- NUROVIC [2019] WADC 28
CORAM:   BOWDEN DCJ
HEARD:   22 FEBRUARY 2019
DELIVERED          :   8 MARCH 2019
FILE NO/S:   APP 108 of 2018
BETWEEN:   MERSID NUROVIC
Appellant
AND
ALMEDINA NUROVIC
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number             :   CIC 221 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation appeal

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2013 (WA)

Result:

Compensation of $50,384.29 awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr J F W Cardell-Oliver appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Bennett v The State of Western Australia (2012) 223 A Crim R 419
Chappell v Bowe [2006] WADC 29; (2006) 42 SR (WA) 143
CME [2018] WADC 69
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25; (2017) 91 SR (WA) 137
Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
MJN v MAJS (2013) 143 A Crim R 375; (2013) 35 SR (WA) 219
Neall v Watson (1960) 34 ALJR 364
Nguyen v The Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation [2000] WADC 221
Pym v Richardson [2018] WADC 156
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

BOWDEN DCJ:

On 1 April 2014 Mr Nurovic (the appellant) pleaded guilty to unlawfully assaulting Ms Nurovic (the respondent) on 27 December 2013 and thereby doing her bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation.
Ms Nurovic subsequently lodged a claim for criminal compensation pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2013 (WA) (the Act) and on 10 October 2018 was awarded $47,821.95. Ms Nurovic was to be paid $44,647.95 and the remaining $1,458 was subject to the provisions of s 48 of the Act for future psychological counselling.
Mr Nurovic appeals that decision. His appeal was lodged within time.

Nature of appeal

An appeal under the Act is a hearing de novo. The District Court may confirm, vary or reverse the assessor's decision either in whole or part which means it may increase or decrease the compensation awarded by the assessor: Nguyen v The Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation [2000] WADC 221.
The appeal is to be determined without being fettered by the assessor's decision. A hearing de novo requires the Appeal Court to consider the matter afresh without regard to any previous decision: cf Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63.
The following materials were before the assessor:
1.Mr Nurovic's appeal notice of 30 October 2018.
2.Compensation award of 10 October 2018.
3.Ms Nurovic's criminal injuries compensation application form of 20 December 2016.
4.Statement of Ms Nurovic of 6 December 2016.
5.Statement of Ms Nurovic of 28 January 2014.
6.Photographs of Ms Nurovic from the criminal injuries compensation assessment file.
7.Victim impact statement…

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 Nurovic v Nurovic

Details

AGLC: Nurovic v Nurovic [2019] WADC 28
Case: [2019] WADC 28
Decision Date: 8 MARCH 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria against a decision of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, which rejected the applicant's claim for criminal injuries compensation. The applicant was the victim of a violent attack by her former partner, the respondent. The Magistrates' Court found that the attack was not motivated by hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation, and did not satisfy the statutory definition of a crime of violence. The applicant sought to appeal this decision on the grounds that the Magistrates' Court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation.

The court was required to consider whether the Magistrates' Court was correct in finding that the attack was not motivated by hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation. The court was also required to consider whether the attack satisfied the statutory definition of a crime of violence. The court had to determine whether the Magistrates' Court erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation.

The court found that the Magistrates' Court was correct in its interpretation of the relevant legislation. The court held that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the attack was motivated by hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation. The court also held that the attack did not satisfy the statutory definition of a crime of violence as it was not an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months. The court found that the Magistrates' Court did not err in its interpretation of the relevant legislation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrates' Court was upheld. The applicant was not entitled to criminal injuries compensation.

Orders