R v CA (No 2)

The appeal was brought by an insurance company, seeking a reparation order for the insurance payout made following the theft of a client’s car. The insurer was not named as a party to the underlying proceedings and had not suffered a direct pecuniary loss. The insurer claimed that the loss suffered by it was a direct result of the offence under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 19. The question for the court was whether the loss was a direct result of the offence and whether the insurer was entitled to a reparation order. The court examined the meaning of “direct result” and found that the loss suffered by the insurer was indirect. The court considered the principles of causation and found that the loss suffered by the insurer was not a direct result of the theft. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for a reparation order was refused.