Taylor v Vukovic - [2000] VSC 29

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Not restricted

No. 1466 of 1998

ANDREW TAYLOR	Applicant
V
ZUBER VUKOVIC	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Eames J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 February 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 February 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Taylor v Vukovic
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 29

---

Compensation for criminal injuries – Sentencing Act 1991, s. 86(1) – whether application brought within time prescribed by s. 86(5) – offender/respondent enters plea of guilty to offence more than six months before application for compensation filed, but is sentenced less than six months before application filed – application to be struck out.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R. Wilcox	David Gibbs & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr J. Gates	Basil Nuridini
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J. Dickson QC	Solicitor for Office of DPP

HIS HONOUR: An application was brought by Dr Andrew Taylor pursuant to s.86(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 seeking compensation for injuries, loss and damage suffered by him as a result of the criminal act of Zuber Vukovic, who pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Dr Taylor. I listed the matter today for directions relating to the application which had been made on behalf of Dr Taylor, and all relevant parties, including - and I express my gratitude to him - counsel for the DPP, attended through their counsel for the purpose of the directions hearing.

A preliminary issue has arisen concerning my jurisdiction to deal with this application further. I gave very last-minute notice to at least two of the counsel for the parties before me that there appeared to be a difficulty that I could perceive relating to jurisdiction, and they had a brief but, so it appears, sufficient opportunity to consider the issue and were content to make submissions today with respect to the matter and not seek to prolong the issue further by seeking an adjournment.

The issue relates to the terms of s.86(5) of the Act, which provides that an order under sub-s.(1) "may be made on an application made as soon as practicable (and, in the case of an application for compensation for pain and suffering, no later than six months) after the offender is found guilty, or convicted of the offence."

In this case the plea of guilty by Mr Vukovic was entered on 7 April 1999. The case was then adjourned to enable further material to be obtained, because, on the day that the plea of guilty was entered, counsel for Mr Vukovic advised that he had only that day been briefed and wanted the opportunity to obtain further information and material relating to submissions on sentence. As a result of those events there was a more prolonged delay between the time of the plea of guilty and the date of sentencing in this case than would usually be the case, and I sentenced Mr Vukovic on 28 May 1999.

The application for compensation…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Taylor v Vukovic and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] VSC 29
Decision Date: 9 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taylor v Vukovic, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained as a result of a criminal act committed by the defendant. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of Section 86(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, specifically the timing of the application for compensation in relation to the offender's plea and sentencing. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, which had to determine whether the application for compensation was made within the timeframe prescribed by Section 86(5) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for compensation was filed within the six-month period stipulated by Section 86(5) of the Act. The defendant had entered a plea of guilty to the offence more than six months before the application for compensation was filed, but was sentenced less than six months before the application was made. The court needed to decide if the application should be struck out due to the timing of the plea and sentencing in relation to the application.

The court examined the statutory provisions and found that the application for compensation must be filed within six months from the date the offender is sentenced. As the defendant was sentenced less than six months before the application was filed, the court concluded that the application was not brought within the time prescribed by Section 86(5). Consequently, the court ruled that the application should be struck out.

No further orders were made by the court, as the primary issue of the application's timeliness was sufficient to determine the outcome. The plaintiff's application for compensation was dismissed due to the non-compliance with the statutory timeframe.

Orders