Suppressed - [2023] WADC 36

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   AW (pseudonym initials) -v- CD (pseudonym initials) [2023] WADC 36
CORAM:   BLACK DCJ
HEARD:   20 JANUARY 2023
DELIVERED          :   28 MARCH 2023
FILE NO/S:   APP 62 of 2021
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal by

BETWEEN: AW (pseudonym initials)
Appellant
AND
CD (pseudonym initials)
First Respondent
LA (pseudonym initials)
Second Respondent
EM (pseudonym initials)
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number            :   CIC 866 of 2020

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Whether appellant was engaged in criminal conduct - Factual findings after trial

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr C J Foyle
First Respondent	:	In person
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	In person
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr C A Payne appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Foyle Legal
First Respondent	:	Not applicable
Second Respondent	:	Not applicable
Third Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
JB v Ramljak [2022] WADC 110
KBR v ADM [2018] WADC 120
Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659
Phillips v Mettam [2022] WADC 49
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
Re ATS [2019] WADC 76
Re Hondros [1973] WAR 1
Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281
Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

BLACK DCJ:

Introduction

This is an appeal against a decision of the criminal injuries assessor (Assessor).
On 8 May 2020 the appellant applied for criminal injuries compensation (Application) pursuant to s 12 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (CIC Act). The Application related to injuries said to have been sustained as a consequence of a series of offences committed against the appellant during an incident that occurred on 12 June 2017. The Application was made within time.[1]
[1] CIC Act s 9(1)(a).
On 17 August 2021, the Assessor formally refused the Application.[2] The appellant appeals from the decision by notice of appeal dated 31 August 2021. This notice was filed within time.[3]
[2] Assessor's papers, page 2.
[3] CIC Act s 55(3).

The proven offences

The respondents were each convicted following a trial before a judge and jury that proceeded in the Perth District Court between 31 July 2019 and 12 August 2019 (the trial). CD (first respondent)[4] and EM (third respondent)[5] were each convicted of the following offences:
1.Deprivation of liberty (s 333 of the Criminal Code (WA)).
2.With intent to do harm, do an act causing bodily harm (s 304(2)(a)…

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 Suppressed

Details

AGLC: Suppressed [2023] WADC 36
Case: [2023] WADC 36
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case under review involves an appeal by an individual against a decision regarding criminal injuries compensation. The appellant, who sustained injuries while allegedly engaged in criminal activities, sought compensation under the relevant statutory scheme. The primary dispute centred on whether the appellant was indeed involved in criminal conduct at the time of the incident, which would disqualify him from receiving compensation. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, it had to ascertain the factual circumstances surrounding the appellant's involvement in criminal activities at the time of the injury. Secondly, the court needed to determine whether these facts disqualified the appellant from receiving compensation under the statutory scheme. The court was tasked with reviewing the evidence presented during the trial and making findings of fact based on that evidence.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence and concluded that the appellant was indeed engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the injury. This finding was based on a detailed analysis of the testimonies, documentary evidence, and other relevant materials presented during the trial. The court held that since the appellant was involved in criminal activities, he was ineligible for compensation under the statutory scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was upheld.

The court's final orders confirmed the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's claim for criminal injuries compensation was denied, and the original decision was affirmed. The court's decision was based on the finding that the appellant was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the injury, which rendered him ineligible for compensation under the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders