Richardson v Lawford - [2020] WADC 58

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RICHARDSON -v- LAWFORD [2020] WADC 58
CORAM:   GOETZE DCJ
HEARD:   24 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED          :   7 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   APP 75 of 2019
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   DAVID WILLIAM RICHARDSON
Appellant
AND
VICTORIA MARGARET LAWFORD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   H L PORTER
File Number            :   CIC 1741 of 2017, CIC 1742 of 2017, CIC 1744 of 2017 & CIC 1745 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal by offender from award of compensation - Victim suffered post‑traumatic stress disorder following breaches of domestic violence orders, protective bail conditions and assault - Disentangling consequences of offending from victim's pre‑existing psychological conditions and other non‑compensable circumstances - Offender's claim of not being aware of the application for compensation - Offender seeking to introduce evidence and information on appeal - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr K L Sardinha appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

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

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

Bentham v Wass [2004] WADC 47
Curnow v Garnant (2012) 79 SR (WA) 240
G & N v R (2006) 48 SR (WA) 301
Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25
Robertson v Baker [2014] WADC 14
SW v BB [2010] WADC 86
Townend v McAlindon [2017] WADC 63
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13; (2018) 94 SR (WA) 57

GOETZE DCJ:

David William Richardson appeals the 'award of $18,442.00 for PTSD' made by the learned Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation for criminal injuries compensation in favour of his former partner, Victoria Margaret Lawford. It will be assumed that Mr Richardson is also appealing the decision to make that award.

The convictions and other allegations

Mr Richardson's proved criminal offending concerning Ms Lawford is as follows:
1.On 25 July 2008, he was convicted of two breaches of a violence restraining order committed on 9 and 11 December 2006 at North Perth.
The statement of material facts provided to the assessor by Ms Lawford relating to these convictions details that on 29 September 2006, Ms Lawford obtained a violence restraining order, which was served on Mr Richardson on 25 November 2006. The order prevented Mr Richardson from approaching Ms Lawford. However, on 9 December 2006 he attended at a hotel where she was residing and was ejected from that hotel by the manager and security staff. The police had been called, but they failed to locate him. Mr Richardson returned to the hotel two days later and entered the room in which Ms Lawford was staying. He was then arrested.
2.On…

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 Richardson v Lawford

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Lawford [2020] WADC 58
Case: [2020] WADC 58
Decision Date: 7 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Richardson v Lawford, the appellant, Richardson, appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had awarded compensation to the victim, Lawford, under the provisions of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic). The victim, Lawford, had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of Richardson's breaches of domestic violence orders, protective bail conditions, and subsequent assault. The central issue before the court was whether Lawford's PTSD was a direct consequence of Richardson's criminal acts, or whether it was attributable to Lawford's pre-existing psychological conditions and other non-compensable circumstances. Additionally, Richardson argued that he was unaware of Lawford's application for compensation and sought to introduce new evidence and information on appeal.

The court needed to disentangle the consequences of Richardson's offending from Lawford's pre-existing psychological conditions and other non-compensable circumstances. It examined the evidence and determined that Lawford's PTSD was a direct result of Richardson's criminal acts. The court rejected Richardson's argument that he was unaware of Lawford's application for compensation, finding that he had actual or constructive knowledge of the application. The court also found that the new evidence and information sought to be introduced by Richardson was not relevant or admissible, as it did not pertain to the original decision-making process and could not be relied upon to overturn the previous decision.

In conclusion, the court upheld the original decision to award compensation to Lawford under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic). The court found that Lawford's PTSD was a direct consequence of Richardson's criminal acts and that the new evidence and information introduced by Richardson was not admissible. The appeal was dismissed, and the original compensation award stood.

Orders