Re Homewood - [2012] WADC 88

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: RE HOMEWOOD [2012] WADC 88

CORAM: SCHOOMBEE DCJ

HEARD: 23 APRIL 2012

DELIVERED : 15 JUNE 2012

FILE NO/S: APP 84 of 2011

MATTER :IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: WALTER HOMEWOOD
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :R GUTHRIE
File No  :CI 1240 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal from assessor's quantification of compensation for injury - Further evidence allowed on appeal - Alleged offence caused aggravation of preexisting depression and anxiety

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr K S Pratt
Amicus Curiae : Ms R B Phillips appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant: Stephen Browne
Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

B v W (1989) 6 SR (WA) 79
Brown's Valve Service Pty Ltd v Cristina [1997] 1 VR 536
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported, WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980)
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
M v J and J v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
SW v BB [2010] WADC 86
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Zumeris v Testa [1972] VR 839

SCHOOMBEE DCJ: This is an appeal under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (the Act) against the decision by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. The grounds of appeal state that the assessor's award of compensation in the amount of $2,389.50 was inadequate.
The assessor allowed the sum of $2,000 as compensation for injuries and $389.50 for treatment expenses.

Background facts

Mr Homewood, the appellant, was assaulted by a 14‑year‑old female who hit him on the right side of his face with an object that Mr Homewood could not identify at the time. Mr Homewood had gone to McDonalds late one evening to buy a hamburger and on leaving the premises was insulted and subsequently assaulted by the 14‑year-old girl.
Mr Homewood had some previous dealings with the girl. He told the assessor in a statement of effect that he had given the girl some money and food on previous occasions when she had asked for assistance. After a while he had refused to give her any more money and this lead to her becoming abusive whenever he happened to meet her in the street.
Mr Homewood suffered a superficial laceration over his right eyebrow about 2 cm in length as a result of the blow on the side of his face. He told the assessor that the wound bled profusely. After arriving back home…

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 Homewood

Details

AGLC: Re Homewood [2012] WADC 88
Case: [2012] WADC 88
Decision Date: 15 JUNE 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were an injured party who sought compensation for criminal injuries and the assessor who had quantified the compensation. The injured party was appealing the decision of the assessor regarding the quantification of compensation for injuries caused by a criminal offence. The nature of the dispute was the amount of compensation to be paid to the injured party. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the assessor had correctly assessed the compensation and whether the injured party had suffered an aggravation of pre-existing depression and anxiety due to the alleged offence. The court found that the assessor had erred in not considering the impact of the alleged offence on the injured party's pre-existing depression and anxiety. The court also found that the injured party had suffered an aggravation of their pre-existing depression and anxiety due to the alleged offence. The court ordered that the injured party be paid additional compensation for the aggravation of their pre-existing condition. The court also allowed the injured party to provide further evidence on appeal. This evidence may have included medical reports or other documentation that supported the injured party's claim for additional compensation.

Orders