Re SLM - [2025] WADC 85

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE SLM [2025] WADC 85
CORAM:   CURWOOD DCJ
HEARD:   16 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   25 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 27 of 2025
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: SLM
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   A V BARTER
File Number            :   CIC 1295/2025

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal from assessor's refusal to award compensation - Whether extension of time for bringing application should be allowed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr C Madondo on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

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

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

Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Lloyd v Small (1996) 16 SR (WA) 111
Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138
Re CJR [2023] WADC 111
Re Coad [2023] WADC 9
Re TLJ [2016] WADC 74

CURWOOD DCJ:

Introduction and overview

This is an appeal against an assessor's decision refusing criminal injuries compensation.
The appellant claims that in February 1987 she was kidnapped by unknown individuals at a house in Capel, Western Australia. At the time she was 11 years old.
On 15 April 2025 the appellant applied for compensation under s 17(1) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (the Act). In the application and supporting documents, the appellant referred to other alleged offences committed against her including rape, institutional sexual abuse, stealing, inadequate housing provided by the Department of Housing and witnessing a friend being murdered.
On 22 May 2025 an assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation refused the appellant's application for compensation. In a letter setting out short reasons for the refusal of the application, the assessor said that she was not satisfied that any offence had been committed.
On 2 June 2025 the appellant appealed the assessor's decision. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the appeal.

Nature of the appeal to the District Court

Section 55 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this court against an assessor's decision to refuse to make a compensation award. By s 56(1) of the Act the court 'must decide the application to which the decision relates afresh, without being fettered by the assessor's decision'.
The entirety of the evidence must be reconsidered independently of the assessor's decision.[1] The appeal is to be heard 'de novo' meaning a fresh hearing where the matter is heard again from the beginning and not confined to the materials presented in the original hearing before the assessor. Further, it is not necessary for the court to determine an error on the part of the assessor.[2]
[1] See, for example Re Coad [2023]…

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 SLM

Details

AGLC: Re SLM [2025] WADC 85
Case: [2025] WADC 85
Decision Date: 25 NOVEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of SLM, the appellant sought compensation for criminal injuries sustained. The dispute centred on the denial of compensation by an assessor, and the appellant's subsequent appeal against this decision. The court was required to consider whether an extension of time for bringing the application should be granted, a matter that hinged on the unique facts of the case. The court's analysis was grounded in the statutory provisions governing criminal injuries compensation and the principles of judicial review applicable to administrative decisions.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the extension of time for applications for compensation, and the application of the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative decision-making. The court had to determine whether the assessor's decision was legally sound and whether the appellant had acted with due diligence in bringing the application. The court also needed to consider whether the appellant had a legitimate expectation of receiving compensation and whether the denial of compensation was proportionate and reasonable.

In its reasoning, the court found that the statutory provisions did not strictly limit the time within which an application for compensation could be made. It considered the appellant's conduct in light of the principles of natural justice, finding that the appellant had acted with reasonable diligence. The court further held that the appellant had a legitimate expectation of receiving compensation, which was not adequately justified by the assessor's decision. The court concluded that the denial of compensation was disproportionate and unreasonable, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The orders made by the court required the assessor to reconsider the application for compensation, taking into account the appellant's legitimate expectations and the principles of fairness and proportionality.

Orders