Legal Research
Cases
Phillips v Mettam

Phillips v Mettam

Case [2022] WADC 49 27 May 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   PHILLIPS -v- METTAM [2022] WADC 49
CORAM:   PRIOR DCJ
HEARD:   21 JANUARY 2022
DELIVERED          :   27 MAY 2022
FILE NO/S:   APP 37 of 2021
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   DAVID ROBERT PHILLIPS
Appellant
AND
KARLEE JAYDE METTAM
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R CAPARARO
File Number            :   CIC 2052 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Proved offences - Separate offences allegedly committed by the appellant at the time appellant injured as consequence of proved offence - Assessment of compensation

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 222, s 223, s 244, s 254

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA), s 3, s 6, s 12, s 39, s 41, s 48, s 55, s 56

Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007 (WA), r 38, r 137, r 139(2)
Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 (WA), s 12
Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 23(5)(c), s 23(9)(a), s 23(9)(d)(i)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Compensation award $31,750

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr M G Devlin
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms E F Archer appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Young & Young
Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Chase v Francis [2020] WADC 34
Curnow v Garnant [2012] WADC 72
Garton v McCormack [2002] WADC 111
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
GW v JW [2019] WADC 15
Hill v Clarke [2015] WADC 93
Hutchings v Lachlan [2012] WADC 89
JY [2013] WADC 187
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Perris v Riley [2009] WADC 39
Phillips [2021] WACIC 23
PK v KDK [2006] WADC 183
Re Richardson [2009] WADC 93
Robinson [2017] WADC 18
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

PRIOR DCJ:

Introduction

The application for compensation was made pursuant to s 12 of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (CICA) on the basis that if the assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (the Assessor) was satisfied that there was a proved offence, then the appellant was entitled to compensation pursuant to that legislation ‑ save for the exceptions set out in the CICA.
The appellant had applied for compensation for losses suffered by him as a result of receiving multiple stab wounds inflicted by Ms Karlee Mettam (the respondent) during the course of an unlawful entry onto the appellant's property at 11 McMahon Court, Uduc by the respondent and others on 23 September 2017. The appellant's property is a 30 acre rural property.[1]
[1] Letter from appellant's solicitors dated 13 November 2020.
The respondent entered her plea of guilty on 15 January 2018 in…

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 Phillips v Mettam

Details

AGLC: Phillips v Mettam [2022] WADC 49
Case: [2022] WADC 49
Decision Date: 27 MAY 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Phillips v Mettam, the applicant sought criminal injuries compensation from the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case involved the applicant's injuries resulting from a shooting incident, which occurred when the police officer fired shots at the applicant, who was later found to be in possession of a firearm. The central issue was whether the injuries sustained by the applicant were a direct consequence of the proved offence, or if they were also caused by the applicant's actions. The court was required to determine the appropriate level of compensation to be awarded, considering the involvement of the applicant in the circumstances leading to the injury.

The legal issues the court had to address were whether the applicant's own criminal conduct could be considered in determining the amount of compensation, and if the applicant's injuries were solely a consequence of the proved offence. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions governing criminal injuries compensation and examined whether the applicant's actions contributed to the injuries sustained. The court also assessed the extent to which the applicant's criminal activity should be taken into account when determining the appropriate level of compensation.

The court found that the applicant's injuries were primarily a consequence of the proved offence, namely the police officer's actions in firing shots at the applicant. However, the court also acknowledged that the applicant's possession of a firearm and the resulting police pursuit played a role in the events leading to the injury. The court determined that the applicant's criminal conduct should be considered when assessing the appropriate level of compensation. Ultimately, the court awarded the applicant a reduced amount of compensation, reflecting the contributory role of the applicant's actions in the incident.

The court ordered that the applicant be awarded a reduced amount of criminal injuries compensation, taking into account the contributory role of the applicant's criminal conduct in the events leading to the injury. The specific amount of compensation awarded was not disclosed in the judgment. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the actions of the applicant when determining the appropriate level of compensation for criminal injuries in cases where the applicant's conduct contributes to the circumstances leading to the injury.

Orders