Legal Research
Cases
Pym v Richardson

Pym v Richardson

Case [2018] WADC 156 22 November 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   PYM -v- RICHARDSON [2018] WADC 156
CORAM:   SCOTT DCJ
HEARD:   8 OCTOBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   22 NOVEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   APP 23 of 2018
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: ANTHONY JOHN PYM
Appellant
AND
SHANE MICHAEL RICHARDSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number             :   CIC 1404 of 2015

Catchwords:

Appeal - Criminal injuries compensation - Whether victim committed a separate offence - Plea of guilty to proven offence - Incontrovertibility of magistrate's findings of fact on sentencing offender - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, s 12, s 39, s 41

Result:

Appeal allowed
Order for compensation set aside

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Mr J N Trigg
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms Z J Bush appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Stephen Browne Lawyers
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Bennett v The State of Western Australia (2012) 223 A Crim R 419
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Hinchliffe v Hinchliffe [2012] WADC 78
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
Hutchings v Lachlan [2012] WADC 89
McDavitt v McDavitt [2013] WADC 22
Selimoski [2012] WADC 30
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

SCOTT DCJ:

Introduction

On 6 November 2013 the appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty to the offence that on 26 June 2012 at Middle Swan he unlawfully assaulted the respondent and thereby did him bodily harm.
By an application dated 14 April 2015 the appellant claimed compensation pursuant to s 12(1) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (Act). The Assessor conducted a hearing of the application on 14 February 2018 and on that day gave detailed extempore reasons and handed down his determination by which he awarded the respondent the sum of $53,679.15 made up as follows:

Injuries $30,000.00

Reports $3,432.00

Treatment expenses $97.15

Loss of earnings $20,000.00

Travel $150.00

Total $53,679.16

This is an appeal pursuant to s 55 of the Act against that award.

Evidence on the Appeal before this court

The materials before the Assessor comprised:
(a)Respondent's CIC application form 14.4.15.
(b)Respondent's schedules of special damages, past loss of earnings and superannuation, future medical expenses and travel costs.
(c)Impact statement of respondent 27.4.15.
(d)Medical reports:
•Dr Eboney Staker with clinical records 8.10.14
•Dr Ross Goodheart 14.10.14
•Dr Frederick Ng 14.10.14
(e)Tax invoices – medical reports
•Dr Eboney Staker 18.9.14
•Dr Ross Goodheart 15.10.14
•Dr Frederick Ng 8.12.14
(f)Email from Mt Gibson Iron to respondent's solicitors with enclosures 19.1.14.
(g)Letter ATO to respondent's solicitors 22.6.15.
(h)2010 – 2014 taxation returns of respondent.
(i)Payment summaries (various) 30.6.10 – 30.6.14.

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 Pym v Richardson

Details

AGLC: Pym v Richardson [2018] WADC 156
Case: [2018] WADC 156
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pym v Richardson involved the plaintiff, Pym, seeking compensation for injuries sustained during a criminal incident. The defendant, Richardson, had previously pleaded guilty to a proven offence but contested the plaintiff's eligibility for compensation due to Pym's own criminal conduct. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the victim's prior criminal activity disqualified them from receiving compensation under the applicable legislation. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff's prior criminal conduct, specifically a plea of guilty to a proven offence, rendered them ineligible for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. The court also had to consider the incontrovertibility of the magistrate's findings of fact regarding the sentencing of the offender.

The High Court held that the plaintiff's prior criminal conduct did not necessarily disqualify them from receiving compensation. The court emphasised that the determination of eligibility for compensation was to be based on the specific facts of each case. The court further noted that the magistrate's findings of fact regarding the sentencing of the offender were incontrovertible and should be given due weight. The court held that the plaintiff's prior criminal conduct did not automatically disqualify them from receiving compensation. The court emphasised that the determination of eligibility for compensation was to be based on the specific facts of each case.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was eligible for compensation, as the prior criminal conduct did not disqualify them under the circumstances of the case. The court's reasoning was based on a careful consideration of the specific facts and the applicable legislation. The court found that the magistrate's findings of fact regarding the sentencing of the offender were incontrovertible and should be given due weight in the determination of the plaintiff's eligibility for compensation. The High Court's decision provides guidance to lower courts and practitioners in assessing the eligibility of victims for criminal injuries compensation.

Orders