Re Krispyn - [2011] WADC 161

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: RE: KRISPYN [2011] WADC 161

CORAM: CURTHOYS DCJ

HEARD: 19 AUGUST 2011

DELIVERED : 3 OCTOBER 2011

FILE NO/S: APP 20 of 2010

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

BETWEEN: SUSAN MARIE KRISPYN
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :L V DEMPSEY
File No  :CI 001138 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal against adequacy of award

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, s 6, s 12, s 13, s 17, s 18, s 41, s 56

Result:

Appeal allowed
Compensation award $56,654.15

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Amicus Curiae : Ms L A Eddy

Solicitors:

Appellant: Not applicable
Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

A v D (1994) 11 WAR 481
B v W (1989) 6 SR (WA) 79
DNA v Britten (1995) 14 SR (WA) 325
ELK v CFB [2009] WADC 90
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666
Hatfield v Under Secretary for Law (Unreported, WASC, Library No 4012, 15 December 1980)
M v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
MJN v MAJS (2003) 35 SR (WA) 219
Re Tilbury [2010] WADC 46
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
Sunderland [2011] WADC 97

CURTHOYS DCJ: The appellant, Ms Krispyn, appeals against an award made by an assessor of criminal injuries compensation on 14 January 2010. The award was made in respect of injuries that Ms Krispyn suffered as a result of an assault on her on 30 September 2006.
Frederick Thomas Brennan was convicted in the District Court at Bunbury on 27 March 2007 of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of stealing a motor vehicle.
The assessor awarded a total of $26,417.60 made up as follows:
Injuries$24,500.00
Travel expenses             $     300.00
Medical report fees        $ 1,329.00
Medical expenses          $     288.60
Total$26,417.60
Ms Krispyn is dissatisfied with the decision of the assessor because in her opinion the amount does not reflect the financial, emotional and physical injuries suffered by her. In her letter to the court she states:
The amount offered to me by the assessor does not include all of my loss of income, ongoing medical costs (medication), ongoing pain and suffering including panic and anxiety attacks, sleep problems, ongoing neck and back pain, headache and tinnitus (continuous ringing in ears all of which I still suffer from the assault which has now been nearly 4 years). I also suffer from agoraphobia and have trust issues.
Before the assault I was an outgoing person who loved to dance and enjoy life.
One explanation for why Ms Krispyn decided to appeal is that the covering letter sent with the assessor's determination made an arithmetical error and overstated the amount of the award at $52,817.20.
I know how easy…

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 Krispyn

Details

AGLC: Re Krispyn [2011] WADC 161
Case: [2011] WADC 161
Decision Date: 3 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Krispyn, the appellant, the court was asked to determine whether the amount awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal was adequate. Krispyn, the appellant, sought compensation for injuries sustained during an armed robbery. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue was whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal was commensurate with the injuries sustained by Krispyn. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the injuries, the impact on Krispyn's life, and whether the award reflected the gravity of the harm suffered. The appellant argued that the compensation was insufficient to cover the full extent of the injuries and their ongoing impact on his life.

The court examined the evidence and the principles of criminal injuries compensation. It found that the Tribunal had considered the appropriate factors but ultimately determined that the award did not fully reflect the severity of Krispyn's injuries and their long-term impact. The court held that the award was inadequate and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reassessment. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that compensation accurately reflects the harm caused by criminal activity.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the original award set aside, and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for reassessment and redetermination of the compensation.

Orders