Re Coad

Case [2023] WADC 9 10 February 2023

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE COAD [2023] WADC 9
CORAM:   TROY DCJ
HEARD:   19 DECEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   10 FEBRUARY 2023
FILE NO/S:   APP 23 of 2022
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: BENJAMIN JOHN COAD
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number            :   CIC 701 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Proved offences - Psychological injury - Any behaviour, condition, attitude or disposition of the appellant which contributed to the injury

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA), s 3, s 12, s 18, s 31, s 41, s 45, s 48, s 55, s 56

Result:

Appeal allowed
Compensation awarded increased to $46,425.00

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr A A Nolan
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms H M Cowie appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	A & E Legal Pty Ltd
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

ATS v Williss [2021] WADC 58
Bacich v Blight [2019] WADC 94
Baker v Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (1998) 20 SR (WA) 377
Blezard v Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Justice [2000] WADC 41
Edmonds v Juniper [2016] WADC 7
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Harris v Sycamore [2022] WADC 4
Michael v Panetta (1994) 10 SR (WA) 323
Mule v The Queen [2005] HCA 49; (2005) 221 ALR 85
Reed v Reed [2002] WADC 11
Swinford [2021] WADC 82
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

TROY DCJ:

Introduction

The appellant Mr Coad and the respondent Mr Norris have known each other since they were children and used to regularly socialise. Mr Norris and Mr Coad's father both lived at the same unit complex in Margaret River. On 24 April 2016 Mr Norris was at home. He and Mr Coad were on bad terms at the time. Mr Coad knocked on Mr Norris' door. Mr Norris was in an agitated state. He warned Mr Coad of his anger but let him into the unit. He then began aggressively questioning Mr Coad about family issues. Mr Coad tried verbally to calm Mr Norris down. Mr Norris pushed Mr Coad to the chest and grabbed him around the throat with his hand. Mr Coad pushed back at Mr Norris who grabbed Mr Coad by the throat again and reached for a knife on the kitchen bench.
Mr Norris lunged towards Mr Coad with the knife held in his right hand above his head. Mr Coad ducked his head down towards the ground, resulting in the knife inserting into the back of Mr Coad's head and neck. Mr Coad sustained a 10 cm wound between the base of the skull and the C3 vertebrae.
Mr Coad's father heard the commotion and went…

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 Coad

Details

AGLC: Re Coad [2023] WADC 9
Case: [2023] WADC 9
Decision Date: 10 FEBRUARY 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Coad, the appellant sought compensation for a psychological injury sustained as a result of criminal acts against him. The dispute centred around whether the appellant's own actions or attitudes had contributed to his injury, which is a factor considered in determining the quantum of compensation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that his psychological injury was entirely due to the criminal acts, while the respondent contended that the appellant's behaviour and attitudes had contributed to the injury, thereby reducing the compensation payable.

The court was required to determine whether any behaviour, condition, attitude or disposition of the appellant had contributed to his psychological injury. This involved a careful assessment of the evidence presented, including the appellant's own testimony and expert opinions on his psychological state and the impact of the criminal acts. The court also needed to consider statutory provisions and previous case law that dealt with similar issues in the context of criminal injuries compensation.

The court found that the appellant's psychological injury was primarily a result of the criminal acts against him, but acknowledged that his pre-existing personality traits and behaviour may have exacerbated the impact of those acts. However, the court concluded that the appellant's contribution to his injury was not significant enough to substantially reduce the compensation payable. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and a consideration of relevant legal principles. The final orders of the court reflected this conclusion, determining that the appellant was entitled to a specific amount of compensation, acknowledging the impact of the criminal acts but also taking into account the appellant's contributory factors.

Orders