Re Piggott

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.