Re Ates

Case [2022] WADC 108 8 December 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE ATES [2022] WADC 108
CORAM:   WHITBY DCJ
HEARD:   14 OCTOBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   8 DECEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   APP 60 of 2021
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   ADAM EMRAH ATES
Appellant
AND
GLEN ALWIN WHITBY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number            :   CIC 2385 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Psychological injuries - Intervening event - Causation - Commission of offences materially contributed to psychological injuries

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr J N Trigg
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms H M Cowie

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Stephen Browne Lawyers (South Perth)
Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

ATB v LA [2021] WADC 64
B v B [2004] WASC 6
B v S (Unreported, WASC, Library No 950223, 10 May 1995)
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78
Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3
M v J and J v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138
Nagel v Tahere [2020] WADC 110
Re Farmer [2015] WADC 91
Re Tilbury [2010] WADC 46
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
T v Curnuck [2004] WASC 139
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

WHITBY DCJ:

In October 2015, Adam Emrah Ates was the victim of an aggravated burglary, robbery and common assault. The offences were committed by Glen Alwin Whitby.
On 11 September 2018, Mr Ates applied for compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (the Act) for physical and psychological injuries he alleges he suffered as a result of the offences.
On 16 May 2019, Mr Ates resubmitted his application as the original application was incomplete.
On 9 August 2021, the Chief Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (Assessor) ordered Mr Ates compensation in the amount of $5,050 comprising the following amounts:
(a)$5,000 for injuries; and
(b)$50 for travel expenses.
Mr Ates appeals that award.

The appeal to the District Court

This appeal is made pursuant to s 55 of the Act. In hearing this appeal, the court 'must decide the application to which the decision relates afresh, without being fettered by the assessor's decision': s 56(1) of the Act. An appeal under the Act is, therefore, a hearing de novo.[1]
[1] Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145 [5].
The court may determine the appeal 'solely on the evidence and information that was in the possession of the assessor or may receive further evidence and information': s 56(1) of the Act.
The court should admit further evidence unless…

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 Re Ates

Details

AGLC: Re Ates [2022] WADC 108
Case: [2022] WADC 108
Decision Date: 8 DECEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Ates involved an appellant appealing against a decision to deny his claim for criminal injuries compensation. The appellant argued that his psychological injuries resulted from being the victim of a crime. The dispute centred on whether his criminal injuries, sustained during an assault, were exacerbated by subsequent criminal activities in which he was involved. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's psychological injuries were directly caused by the initial crime, and if so, whether any subsequent criminal activities constituted an intervening event that broke the chain of causation. The court had to determine if the appellant's later criminal conduct materially contributed to his psychological condition, potentially diminishing his entitlement to compensation.

The court considered the nature and extent of the psychological injuries, the events leading to them, and the subsequent criminal activities. It examined whether the appellant's later criminal conduct was a foreseeable consequence of the initial assault and if it materially contributed to his psychological condition. The court found that the appellant's later criminal activities did not sever the causal link between the initial crime and his psychological injuries. It held that the appellant's injuries were directly attributable to the initial crime and that the subsequent criminal conduct did not materially contribute to his psychological condition. The appeal was dismissed.

The court's decision upheld the original determination denying the appellant's claim for criminal injuries compensation. The court found that the appellant's psychological injuries were a direct result of the initial crime, and his subsequent criminal activities did not constitute an intervening event that broke the chain of causation.

Orders