Re Preston - [2014] WADC 16

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: RE PRESTON [2014] WADC 16

CORAM: EATON DCJ

HEARD: 17 JANUARY 2014

DELIVERED : 5 FEBRUARY 2014

FILE NO/S: APP 87 of 2013

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

BETWEEN: ADRIAN CHADD PRESTON
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :R GUTHRIE
File No  :CI 000787 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal from dismissal of claim - Alleged offence - Whether appellant satisfied burden of proof

Legislation:

Criminal Code
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
District Court Rules 2005

Result:

Appeal allowed
Appellant awarded $18,225.00

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms J H Craig
Amicus Curiae : Ms C E Brandstater appeared for the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant: Shine Lawyers
Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

BAS v Estate of NAS [2000] WASCA 270
Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452

EATON DCJ: The appellant was born on 12 November 1987. On 21 October 2011 he attended a nightclub in Rockingham called 'Vibe', arriving there at about 9.30 pm in company with his friend, Gavin Braam, and another known only as 'Jamie'. In a statement given to police on 26 October 2011, the appellant said that he had consumed 'throughout the night' six stubbies of Jack Daniels bourbon and two shakers of 'Illusions'. I assume that the Jack Daniels drinks were mixed drinks being, in all probability, stubbies of bourbon and coke. I assume that the 'Illusions' were some form of combination of liqueur and other mixers, otherwise known as 'shooters'.
At about 1.00 am the appellant was on the dance floor when he noticed his friend Jamie wrestling with another patron. The other patron's friends came to his assistance. The appellant went to assist Jamie. He grabbed hold of a male, one of Jamie's assailants, and pushed him away. That person then attempted to punch the appellant but failed to do so. The appellant took a couple of steps toward the male and punched him with 'a straight right' to his cheek. At that point the appellant was grabbed by a bouncer in the employ of the venue who told him that he would be ejected. The appellant did not resist. He has no recollection of going down the front steps of the premises but did leave. His next recollection was of being woken up in a taxi by his friends Gavin and Jamie. They told him that they did not see what had happened but said that they noticed that he was bleeding from his mouth.
The foregoing summary is derived from the appellant's statement to police dated 26 October 2011. On 25 October 2012 Gavin Braam provided a statement in writing to the appellant's solicitors. In…

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 Preston

Details

AGLC: Re Preston [2014] WADC 16
Case: [2014] WADC 16
Decision Date: 5 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Preston involved an appeal against the dismissal of a claim for criminal injuries compensation. The appellant, Preston, sought compensation for injuries he alleged were sustained as a result of an assault. The trial judge dismissed his claim on the basis that the appellant had failed to satisfy the burden of proof required to substantiate his claim. The matter was brought before the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the trial judge's decision and determining whether the appellant had indeed failed to meet the necessary burden of proof.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had correctly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the legal standards in determining that the appellant had not satisfied his burden of proof. The appellant argued that he had provided sufficient evidence to establish his claim, and that the trial judge had erred in dismissing his application. The central question was whether the evidence presented was adequate to establish the occurrence of the alleged assault and the resultant injuries, thereby satisfying the legal criteria for compensation.

In reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that the appellant had indeed presented sufficient evidence to establish the occurrence of the assault and the resultant injuries. The Court concluded that the trial judge had erred in finding that the appellant had failed to satisfy the burden of proof. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was awarded the sum of $18,225.00 in compensation. The Court of Appeal's decision highlighted the importance of correctly applying the burden of proof in criminal injuries compensation claims and ensuring that all evidence is properly considered in such proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Appellant awarded $18,225.00

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.