Re SMB (pseudonym initials) - [2025] WADC 24

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE SMB (pseudonym initials) [2025] WADC 24
CORAM:   CORMANN DCJ
HEARD:   11 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   17 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 4 of 2024
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: SMB (pseudonym initials)
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number            :   CIC 3346/2023

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal of award - Application to amend original claims made - Application to adduce new evidence on appeal

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal out of time granted
Assessor's award affirmed
Additional award for future treatment expenses

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr C Economidis appeared 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):

BAS v The Estate of NAS (dec) [2000] WASCA 270
M v J and J v J (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992)
Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138
Re CJR [2023] WADC 111
Re Richards [2022] WADC 100
Re Warrek [2019] WADC 50
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

CORMANN DCJ:

Introduction and background

By application lodged on 21 October 2023, the appellant claimed compensation for injury and loss suffered as consequence of offences committed against her at her home on 12 December 2022.
As regards the offences:
(a)a person was subsequently convicted of 'being armed or pretending to be armed in a way that may cause fear', and
(b)a second person was subsequently convicted of 'threaten to damage dwelling at night'.
In her application, the appellant described her consequent injuries as her being:
… fearful in her own house, [she] couldn't sleep, [she] didn't want to leave [her] house for months after the incident.
The appellant sought compensation alleged to arise from injuries which she described as future treatment expenses, namely counselling services and therapy estimated at $2,250.
By letter dated 24 November 2023, the chief assessor informed the appellant of her decision to award compensation in the amount of $7,500.
By email from the appellant to the Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation (CIC) on 18 December 2023, the appellant stated that she 'realised that $7,500 is far too low for what happened', and that she had 'somehow accidentally clicked that [she did not] want to claim for many things when in fact [she does] want to claim for them' including medical treatment expenses, travel expenses and loss of income.
The appellant then appealed the award to this court on the basis that she sought to amend her claim to include those additional components. She also applied for leave to adduce additional evidence as to her alleged injuries and future treatment needs.

Time…

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 SMB (pseudonym initials)

Details

AGLC: Re SMB (pseudonym initials) [2025] WADC 24
Case: [2025] WADC 24
Decision Date: 17 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the applicant, a pseudonymous individual referred to as SMB, against a decision made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. The applicant sought to amend the original claims made and to adduce new evidence on appeal. The decision under appeal related to the amount of compensation awarded to SMB for injuries sustained during a criminal incident. The original application for compensation was made by SMB, who argued that the compensation awarded did not adequately reflect the extent of their injuries and the impact on their life. The Tribunal had declined to amend the original claims and to allow the introduction of new evidence, leading to the current appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had the authority to amend the original claims made by SMB and whether the Tribunal had the discretion to allow new evidence to be adduced on appeal. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had the power to amend the original claims and to consider new evidence, especially given the significant impact of the criminal incident on their life. The respondent, representing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, contended that the Tribunal's decisions were within its statutory powers and that the Tribunal was not obliged to amend its original findings or to admit new evidence on appeal.

In determining the appeal, the court considered the relevant statutory framework governing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and the principles of administrative law applicable to the exercise of discretion by tribunals. The court held that the Tribunal did not have the authority to amend the original claims made by the applicant, as this would effectively alter the scope of the original application. However, the court found that the Tribunal had the discretion to consider new evidence, provided that it was relevant and material to the issues before the Tribunal. The court also noted that the Tribunal's decision not to allow the new evidence was not an unreasonable exercise of discretion, given the nature of the evidence and its potential impact on the overall compensation award.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision not to amend the original claims or to admit new evidence. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the statutory powers of the Tribunal and the principles of administrative law, which guided the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal. The court's determination ensures that the Tribunal's decisions are made within the confines of the relevant statutory framework, while also allowing for a fair and just outcome in each case.

Orders