Re SR

Case [2025] WADC 37 27 June 2025

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE SR [2025] WADC 37
CORAM:   FLYNN DCJ
HEARD:   27 MARCH 2025
DELIVERED          :   27 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 57 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: SR
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   K HAFFORD
File Number            :   CIC 2472/2022

Catchwords:

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

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr J N D'Angelo
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms N T Worthy appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	CLP Legal Pty Ltd
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

ATB v LA [2021] WADC 64
Commissioner for Consumer Protection v Murphy [2013] WASCA 89
ELK v CFB [2009] WADC 90
Fagan v The Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666
Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs [2024] WASCA 96
Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25
HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40; (2019) 269 CLR 403
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd t/as Home Owners Warranty [2010] HCA 32; (2010) 241 CLR 390
Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3
Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138
Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
Re CJR [2023] WADC 111
Re Harvey [2023] WADC 83
S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369

FLYNN DCJ:

Introduction

In July 2004, the appellant told his mother (DS) of having been sexually abused by his stepfather (AS). The appellant was aged 25 when he told his mother of multiple occasions between the ages of 6 and 16 when he was abused by AS (the Alleged Sexual Offences). Within days, the appellant made a formal complaint to police, signing a detailed witness statement on 30 July 2004.

Police investigated the Alleged Sexual Offences. AS was interviewed. He denied any sexual abuse of the appellant. In November 2004, police decided that there was 'insufficient evidence to charge'.[1]
[1] Assessor's Papers (AP), page 233. The Assessor's Papers (numbered 1 - 275) are copies of some of the documents that were before the assessor and have been supplied to the court pursuant to the District Court Rules 2005 (WA) (DCR) r 52(3). Additional documents before the assessor have been compiled into an Appeal Book (AB) (numbered 1 - 681) filed in the appeal by the amicus curiae.
On 5 September 2022, the appellant lodged an application for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (CIC Act) in relation to the Alleged Sexual Offences (the Compensation Application). He was aged 43.
On 12 August…

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 SR

Details

AGLC: Re SR [2025] WADC 37
Case: [2025] WADC 37
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re SR, the applicant sought to appeal a decision of the assessor for criminal injuries compensation, who had refused to award compensation. The dispute arose from the assessor's refusal to grant an extension of time for the applicant to bring his application for compensation. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Hulme.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the applicant had a valid reason for the delay in bringing his application and whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the time for the application. The applicant argued that he had been unaware of his right to apply for compensation and had suffered from a cognitive disability, which had contributed to the delay. The respondent argued that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a sufficient reason for the delay and that the application should be dismissed.

The court found that the applicant had not provided a sufficient reason for the delay in bringing his application. The court held that the applicant's cognitive disability did not excuse the delay and that he had not taken reasonable steps to make inquiries about his right to apply for compensation. The court also noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support his claim of unawareness of his right to apply for compensation. The court held that the applicant had failed to discharge the onus of proving that the extension of time should be granted and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the decision of the assessor should be upheld, and the applicant's application for compensation should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the applicant's appeal and held that the decision of the assessor should be upheld. The applicant's application for compensation was dismissed, and no compensation was awarded. The court held that the applicant had failed to provide a sufficient reason for the delay in bringing his application and that the extension of time should not be granted. The court also held that the applicant's cognitive disability did not excuse the delay and that he had not taken reasonable steps to make inquiries about his right to apply for compensation.

Orders