Legal Research
Cases
Sweetman v Lilley

Sweetman v Lilley

Case [2021] WADC 74 29 July 2021

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   SWEETMAN -v- LILLEY [2021] WADC 74
CORAM:   TROY DCJ
HEARD:   21 JULY 2021
DELIVERED          :   29 JULY 2021
FILE NO/S:   APP 61 of 2020
MATTER: IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   KEITH AARON SWEETMAN
Appellant
AND
JEMMA VICTORIA LILLEY
First Respondent
TRUDI CLARE LENON
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File Number            :   CIC 2070 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Proved offences - Psychological injury - Injury or loss - PTSD - Amount of compensation - Turns on own facts - Out of time

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Compensation awarded increased to $75,000

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr H J E Skinner
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Mr C A Payne on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	DLA Piper Australia - Perth
First Respondent	:	Not applicable
Second Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Blezard v Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Justice [2000] WADC 41
DCN v RJS [2004] WADC 63
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19 [14]
Lilley v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 164
Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138
Michael v Panetta (1994) 10 SR (WA) 323
Moncrieff v Bishop [2007] WADC 198
R v Fraser [1975] 2 NSWLR 521
Re Hojetzki [2009] WADC 77
Robinson [2017] WADC 18
Simonsen v Legge [2010] WASCA 238
TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187

TROY DCJ:

On 13 June 2016 the respondents murdered Mr Keith Sweetman's only child, his 18-year-old son, Aaron Pajich-Sweetman. Aaron had autism. He was targeted for that reason. The respondents were convicted as charged. I am satisfied that Mr Sweetman suffered, as a consequence, severe, enduring and debilitating mental and nervous shock.
The egregious nature of this crime emerges from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lilley v The State of Western Australia.[1]
[1] Lilley v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 164.
On 13 June 2016, the respondents intentionally killed Mr Pajich at a residential property occupied by the respondents. Mr Pajich had been attacked with a knife and a wire garrotte. The garrotte caused fine abraded bruising to his neck. He was stabbed three times with the knife. Two of the stab wounds, one to his neck and the other to his chest, were fatal. Mr Pajich also suffered some defensive wounds to his hands. Police had found Mr Pajich's body buried in the backyard of the property. His body was wrapped in a white rubber-backed drop sheet and covered by a blue tarpaulin. A cement pad and red tiles had been placed over the burial site.
In his sentencing remarks on 28 February…

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 Sweetman v Lilley

Details

AGLC: Sweetman v Lilley [2021] WADC 74
Case: [2021] WADC 74
Decision Date: 29 JULY 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved Sweetman, the appellant, against Lilley, the respondent, with the case being heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the appellant's claim for criminal injuries compensation. Sweetman sought compensation for psychological injuries, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), stemming from a series of criminal acts against him. The respondent contested the validity of the claim, arguing that Sweetman's claim was time-barred and that the psychological injury did not qualify as a compensable injury under the relevant legislation.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, whether Sweetman's claim for compensation was time-barred as it was filed beyond the statutory deadline. Secondly, whether the psychological injury Sweetman suffered, namely PTSD, constituted a compensable injury under the relevant statutory provisions. Finally, if the claim was valid, the court had to determine the appropriate amount of compensation.

The court found that the appellant's claim was indeed out of time, as it was not lodged within the statutory period allowed for such claims. The court emphasised that strict compliance with statutory time limits for filing claims is essential. Regarding the compensable injury, the court noted that while PTSD is recognised as a legitimate psychological injury, the circumstances of this case did not meet the threshold for compensation. The court concluded that the appellant's injuries did not result directly from the criminal acts, as required by the legislation. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the earlier decision that the claim was time-barred and that the injuries did not qualify for compensation.

Orders