Re SR (by their Next Friend Mr) (pseudonym initials) - [2024] WADC 43

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RE SR (by their Next Friend MR) (pseudonym initials) [2024] WADC 43
CORAM:   RITTER DCJ
HEARD:   14 DECEMBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   7 JUNE 2024
FILE NO/S:   APP 30 of 2023
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: SR (by their Next Friend MR) (pseudonym initials)
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R GUTHRIE
File Number            :   CIC 2025/2022

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal against amount awarded - Psychological injuries - Nervous shock

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms M Orellana
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms M H Cowie appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Compo Lawyers WA Pty Ltd
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Re VPAN [2011] WADC 40
Re ZD [2024] WADC 42
WHW v Commissioner of Police [2014] WASCA 153 (S)

RITTER DCJ:

SR seeks, by way of an appeal, an increase in the amount of compensation awarded in their favour by an assessor of criminal injuries compensation (the assessor). The application to the assessor had been made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (the Act). The award of compensation was made by the assessor on 28 June 2023. SR was born in November 2007. Accordingly, the appeal is brought by their mother, MR, as a next friend. An application to the assessor had also been made by the sibling of SR, ZD. ZD's application was determined at the same time as SR's application. ZD has also appealed against the award of compensation to them.
The assessor did not provide any reasons for decision. However, correspondence to SR said an award of compensation of $26,334.54 was made on 28 June 2023, made up as follows:

General damages

$22,500.00

Reports

$2,085.60

Treatment expenses

$283.94

Travel expenses

$250.00

Future treatment expenses to a maximum of

$1,215.00

Total

$26,334.54

Also, in a letter from the assessor to SR, dated 28 June 2023 (the assessor's letter) it was said that the compensation awarded to the appellant had been awarded for injuries, reports, treatment expenses, travel expenses and future treatment.
Both the appeals by SR and ZD were heard before me at the same time and some common submissions were made. However, the appeals of SR and ZD must be determined separately, based upon the issues and evidence relevant to the particular appeal.
These reasons should be read with the reasons for decision in the appeal of ZD. In the reasons for decision of ReZD,[1] I have set out principles applicable to both appeals. I will refer to these again below.
[1] ReZD [2024] WADC 42.
Both of the applications for compensation before the assessor were made pursuant to s 35(2)(c) and/or s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re SR (by their Next Friend Mr) (pseudonym initials) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] WADC 43
Decision Date: 7 JUNE 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between the State of Victoria and a person identified by their pseudonym initials SR, over the amount of compensation awarded for psychological injuries suffered due to a criminal act. SR had suffered nervous shock as a result of the criminal act, and sought compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2008 (Vic). The Court of Appeal heard the matter, with SR appealing against the amount awarded by the original decision-maker.

The primary legal issue was whether the original decision-maker had erred in calculating the compensation amount for the psychological injuries suffered by SR. Specifically, the Court was required to determine whether the decision-maker had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions in assessing the extent of SR's injuries and the appropriate compensation amount. The Court also needed to consider whether the decision-maker had taken into account all relevant factors in making their determination.

The Court found that the original decision-maker had indeed erred in their assessment of the compensation amount. The decision-maker had not correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions in determining the extent of SR's injuries and the appropriate compensation amount. Additionally, the decision-maker had not taken into account all relevant factors in making their determination, including the impact of the psychological injuries on SR's ability to work and their overall quality of life. The Court therefore allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the original decision-maker for reassessment.

The Court did not make any final orders in the appeal, as the matter needed to be remitted back to the original decision-maker for reassessment. However, the Court did provide guidance on the correct approach to be taken in assessing compensation for psychological injuries under the relevant legislation. The Court emphasised the importance of taking into account the full extent of the injuries and their impact on the victim's life, and of applying the relevant legislative provisions correctly in making a determination.

Orders