Re MJM - [2021] WADC 104

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE MJM [2021] WADC 104
CORAM:   WHITBY DCJ
HEARD:   6 SEPTEMBER 2021 & WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED 1 NOVEMBER 2021
DELIVERED          :   5 NOVEMBER 2021
FILE NO/S:   APP 3 of 2021
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: MJM
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CIC 47 OF 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Proved offence - Alleged offence - Admission of additional evidence - Conduct of the Appellant

Legislation:

Criminal Code
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)
Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Compensation award varied

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr N Morrissey
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms K E Ellson on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Bradford Legal
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Puterangi [2017] WADC 168
Re Richardson [2009] WADC 93
Robinson [2017] WADC 18
Savic v Duric [2021] WADC 53
Sweetman v Lilley [2021] WADC 74
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13
X v McAllister [2021] WASCA 3
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452, 461

WHITBY DCJ:

MJM was a 15-year-old boy in 2017.
On 6 April 2017, MJM went to Cockburn Gateway Shopping Centre with a friend in the evening. At about 8.45 pm, MJM was having dinner at McDonald's when he saw a group of young people gathering nearby in the car park.
The police had attended the scene in order to move the group on. MJM recognised one of the people in the group so went over to see what was going on. The police asked all of the young people to move on, including MJM. One of the police officers was Constable T. As MJM was leaving the scene, Constable T pushed MJM in the back to hurry him along.
As he was leaving the scene, MJM shone a torchlight at Constable T and other police officers. MJM then ran towards the entrance to the shopping centre. The front doors of an entrance to the shopping centre opened, but the second set of doors to the entrance did not open because it was after 9.00 pm. MJM was left standing between the two sets of doors.
Another police officer and Constable T ran into the space between the two sets of doors where MJM was standing. As MJM tried to run away from them, Constable T and the other police officer tackled MJM and brought him to the ground. MJM says he felt Constable T drop his knee onto the top of his head from behind to restrain him.
Constable T then shone his torchlight into MJM's face and pressed the torch against MJM's right eye for approximately…

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 MJM

Details

AGLC: Re MJM [2021] WADC 104
Case: [2021] WADC 104
Decision Date: 5 NOVEMBER 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an application for criminal injuries compensation by MJM, who sought compensation for injuries sustained during an alleged armed robbery. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant's admission of committing a different offence, distinct from the one for which he sought compensation, warranted the rejection of his application. The Federal Circuit Court had previously dismissed the application, and MJM appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the nature of the applicant's admission precluded him from receiving compensation. It was also necessary to consider whether the admission was relevant to the assessment of the application and if additional evidence could be admitted. The court examined the statutory provisions governing criminal injuries compensation and the principles established in prior cases.

The Full Court concluded that the admission of a different offence did not automatically disqualify the applicant from receiving compensation. It held that the relevance of the admission depended on its connection to the circumstances surrounding the claimed offence. The court found that the admission did not necessarily establish that the applicant was not a victim of the crime for which he sought compensation. The Full Court also determined that additional evidence could be considered if it was relevant to the applicant's entitlement to compensation.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for reconsideration of the application in light of the Full Court's findings. The Full Court emphasised the importance of assessing each application on its merits, ensuring that the applicant's eligibility for compensation was determined based on the specific facts of the case.

Orders