Offender Z v Department of Justice and Attorney General Offender Debt Recovery Program
[2013] QCAT 562
| CITATION: | Offender Z v Department of Justice and Attorney General Offender Debt Recovery Program [2013] QCAT 562 |
| PARTIES: | Offender Z (Applicant) |
| V | |
| Department of Justice and Attorney General Offender Debt Recovery Program (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR409-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the Papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Mr David Paratz, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 24 October 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Publication is prohibited of: (a) the contents of any document produced to the tribunal and contained in the tribunal file (b) any information that may enable identification of the applicant or any of the victims other than to the applicant or the respondent. 2. These reasons are to be published in a de-identified format in compliance with this order. 3. The applicant is de-identified, and is to be known as Offender Z in these reasons and orders. 4. The two decisions of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Offender Debt Recovery Program) made on 6 November 2012, that the State is entitled to recover amounts from Offender Z are confirmed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | REVIEW - Victims of crime – compensation order – offender in financial hardship – hardship not a consideration under the Act – no error shown in decision – non publication order – risk of identification of victims who are minors – danger to the physical or mental health of the applicant by publication – de-identification of name of applicant Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 s 32, 36 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Offender Z is a prisoner in a Queensland correctional facility. He is serving a very lengthy sentence for convictions for sexual offences against minors. He was convicted in 2006.
The offences occurred around the year 2000 in Queensland. One conviction related to maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years with a circumstance of aggravation. The other charges related to a separate victim and involved indecent treatment of a child under 12.
In late 2009, applications were made pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 (COVA) for compensation. In late 2010, Orders were made by a Judge of the District Court of Queensland that Offender Z pay to one victim the amount of $22,500, and pay to the other victim the amount of $20,250, by way of compensation. In early 2011, applications were brought by the two victims seeking payment of the compensation under s 32 of the Act.
Payment of both amounts was approved and made by the Department from the Consolidated Fund on or about 24 August 2011 pursuant to the provisions of s 36 of COVA by way of ex gratia payments.
Recovery Notices dated 27 September 2012 and 16 October 2012 were sent to Offender Z under s 189 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (VOCA), informing him of the payments and that the State intended to recover the payments from him under the Act.
Offender Z disputed the recovery notices by letters dated 17 October 2012 and 20 October 2012, on the grounds that he was serving a lengthy prison term and was only in receipt of prison income, and was in no financial position to pay the moneys owing. The total owing was $42,750.
The Scheme Manager considered the dispute notices, and decided by letter dated 6 November 2012 that the State is entitled to recover the amounts from him.
Offender Z applied to the Tribunal on 6 December 2012 for a review of those decisions of the Scheme Manager
In that Application, Offender Z also asked for a private hearing pursuant to s 90 of the QCAT Act, and a non-publication order pursuant to s 66 of that Act.
Offender Z made submissions by way of a letter to the Registrar received on 8 August 2013.
He advised that he had attempted to take his own life this year due to prison and other issues. He survived and spent a month in a medical suicide unit. He said that he is “constantly reminded by some very unpleasant people” of his wrongs, due to his classification as a high profile sex offender.
S 66 (2)(b) of the QCAT Act provides that a non-publication order may be made if the tribunal considers the order is necessary to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person.
If details of these matters are made public in this Review Application, there is a foreseeable risk that they will come to the attention of other prison inmates or associates, and add to the pressures upon Offender Z. Having regard to the fact that he has already been placed in extreme risk by a suicide attempt, it is highly foreseeable that such publication would endanger his physical or mental health.
There is also a concern that if there is publication of information, that one or both of the victims, who were minors, may possibly be identified.
Accordingly, I consider it appropriate that a non-publication order be made, and that the Applicant be de-identified and known as Offender Z.
Offender Z does not contest the validity of the compensation orders, the amount of the orders, whether these are relevant offences, or that he is the correct Respondent to the orders. The only ground that he raises is that he is financially unable to pay the amounts either now or conceivably in the future. He says that has no assets, and his prison wage was only $21.00 per week. He says that 85% of his wage was used to cover the cost of his phone calls, and the rest went to pay to have a television and on hygiene products. Since the suicide attempt, he has lost his job and now only receives $14.00 per week.
In its decision letter of 6 November 2012, the Scheme Manager noted that Offender Z was in financial hardship, but that there is no specific provision in VOCA to waive or reduce the amount the State is entitled to recover in relation to the orders on the grounds of financial hardship.
The Scheme Manager noted that Offender Z would be able to apply to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER) to enter into a payment arrangement.
There is a mechanism referred to in s 119 of VOCA for payments to be made from an offender prisoner’s account, which reduce the offender’s liability.
S 117 of VOCA provides that if notice has been properly given, and a dispute notice has been finally decided by the Scheme Manager or the Tribunal, that the offender is liable to pay the State the payable amount within the payment period.
The role of the tribunal is to review decisions to produce the correct and preferable decision[1].
[1] QCAT Act s 20(2).
There is no error of law or fact shown in the decisions that were made. The two decisions of the Scheme Manager made on 6 November 2012, that the State is entitled to recover the amounts, are correct and proper decisions. I confirm those decisions.
0
0
0