RE PIGGOTT [2017] WADC 150

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2017] WADC 150
Case No:	APP:29/2017	Heard:	6 OCTOBER 2017
Coram:	BOWDEN DCJ	Delivered:	24/11/17
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	37	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time within which to lodge the application granted Application for compensation dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	DUNCAN PIGGOTT
Catchwords:	Criminal injuries compensation Appeal from assessor's refusal to award compensation Whether alleged offence proven on the balance of probabilities
Legislation:	Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
Case References:	Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29 Egitmen v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 214 Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25 Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78 Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63 Lloyd v Small (1996) 16 SR (WA) 111 Marchesano v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 177 Nominal Defendant v Owens (1978) 22 ALR 128 Powell v The Queen (Unreported, CCA SCt of WA, Library No 4004, 2 December 1980) Prideaux v Chief Executive Officer (2000) 24 SR (WA) 240 R v Tranby (1991) 52 A Crim R 228 Re ATS [2017] WADC 92 Re Richardson [2009] WADC 93

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : RE PIGGOTT [2017] WADC 150 CORAM : BOWDEN DCJ HEARD : 6 OCTOBER 2017 DELIVERED : 24 NOVEMBER 2017 FILE NO/S : APP 29 of 2017 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

AND

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN : DUNCAN PIGGOTT

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS

File No : CI 1482 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal from assessor's refusal to award compensation - Whether alleged offence proven on the balance of probabilities

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003

Result:

Extension of time within which to lodge the application granted

Application for compensation dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R R Cywicki

Amicus Curiae

: Mr S R Pack appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant : Nigams Legal

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Egitmen v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 214
Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25
Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63
Lloyd v Small (1996) 16 SR (WA) 111
Marchesano v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 177
Nominal Defendant v Owens (1978) 22 ALR 128
Powell v The Queen (Unreported, CCA SCt of WA, Library No 4004, 2 December 1980)
Prideaux v Chief Executive Officer (2000) 24 SR (WA) 240
R v Tranby (1991) 52 A Crim R 228
Re ATS [2017] WADC 92
Re Richardson [2009] WADC 93

1 BOWDEN DCJ: On the 22 January 2013 Mr…

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 Piggott

Details

AGLC: Re Piggott [2017] WADC 150
Case: [2017] WADC 150
Decision Date: 24 NOVEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Piggott, the appellant sought to appeal a decision by an assessor who refused to award compensation for criminal injuries sustained by the appellant. The dispute arose from the assessor's determination that the alleged offence, which was the basis of the appellant's claim for compensation, was not proven on the balance of probabilities. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the alleged offence had been established to the requisite standard, specifically whether it was proven on the balance of probabilities. This required the court to evaluate the evidence presented and the assessor's findings in light of the statutory criteria governing the award of compensation for criminal injuries.

The court examined the evidence and the assessor's decision in detail. It held that the evidence did not meet the balance of probabilities standard, and thus, the alleged offence was not proven. The court found that the assessor's conclusion was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not find it necessary to grant an extension of time for the appellant to lodge the application, as the appeal was without merit. Therefore, the application for compensation was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time within which to lodge the application granted

Application for compensation dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.