SAY v AZ

In the case of SAY v AZ, the appellant sought compensation from her step-father, the respondent, following his conviction for raping her. The appellant claimed she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the rape and other prior abuse. The trial judge awarded the appellant $28,500 in criminal injury compensation, reducing the amount due to the appellant's failure to consider other abusive acts in the psychologist's report. The appellant challenged this reduction, arguing that the trial judge should have considered the entirety of her trauma.

The central issue in the case was whether the trial judge erred in reducing the compensation amount because of other abusive acts that were not the subject of the respondent's conviction. The court had to determine whether the common law approach to compensation applied in civil cases could be used in criminal compensation cases, particularly when there is more than one cause of injury. The court also had to consider the relevance of the nature of the acts and the injury in determining the amount of compensation.

The court found that the trial judge erred in reducing the compensation amount. The court held that the common law approach to contribution in tort cases was not applicable in criminal compensation cases. The court also noted that the nature of the acts and the injury were relevant to determining the amount of compensation. The court held that the trial judge should have considered the totality of the appellant's trauma, including the prior abuse, in determining the amount of compensation. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order below, ordering the respondent to pay $42,750 in compensation to the appellant, together with her costs of the appeal.