Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: R GUTHRIE
File Number : CIC 1825/2020
Catchwords:
Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Whether appellant was afforded procedural fairness - Whether amount of compensation excessive - Whether the award of compensation should be reduced on account of the victim's behaviour - Whether the District Court has the power on appeal to vary an order made by an assessor under Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) s 45(1)(b)
[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 Savic v Duric
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Savic v Duric [2021] WADC 53
Case
[2021] WADC 53
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Savic v Duric involved an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the District Court which dismissed the appellant’s application for criminal injuries compensation. The appellant had sustained injuries as a result of criminal activity and sought compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA). The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was afforded procedural fairness during the assessment of his application and whether the amount of compensation awarded was excessive. Additionally, the court considered whether the award should be reduced due to the victim's behaviour and whether the District Court had the authority to vary an order made by an assessor under section 45(1)(b) of the Act.
The court began by examining the procedural fairness of the assessment process. It determined that the appellant was indeed afforded procedural fairness. The assessor had followed the necessary procedures, including providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. The court then moved to consider the amount of compensation awarded. It was held that the amount was not excessive, given the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the appellant. The court also assessed whether the award should be reduced due to the victim's behaviour. It concluded that the victim's conduct did not warrant a reduction in the compensation amount, as it did not significantly contribute to the appellant's injuries. Finally, the court addressed the issue of whether the District Court had the power to vary the order made by the assessor. It held that the District Court did not have such power under section 45(1)(b) of the Act.
The appeal was dismissed, and the original order of the District Court was upheld. The court confirmed that the appellant was afforded procedural fairness, the compensation amount was appropriate, and there were no grounds for reducing the award based on the victim's behaviour. The District Court was also found to lack the authority to vary the order made by the assessor.