Thomson v Francis - [2016] WADC 154

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: THOMSON -v- FRANCIS [2016] WADC 154

CORAM: EATON DCJ

HEARD: 12 OCTOBER 2016

DELIVERED : 2 NOVEMBER 2016

FILE NO/S: APP 82 of 2015

BETWEEN: ANGELA COLLEEN THOMSON
Appellant
AND
JOHNATHON KEITH FRANCIS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :L V DEMPSEY
File No  :CI 002368 of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal from an award made by an assessor

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
District Court Rules 2005
Evidence Act 1906
Firearms Act 1973
High Court Rules 1952 (Rules of the High Court)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981

Result:

Appeal allowed
Award quashed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     In person
Respondent:     Not applicable
Amicus Curiae                   :    Mr D Harrop appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Not applicable
Respondent:     Not applicable
Amicus Curiae                   :    State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30; (1990) 93 ALR 479
Gleeson v Lee (1996) 18 SR(WA) 353

EATON DCJ: On 9 March 2014 Johnathon Keith Francis made application for criminal injuries compensation pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003. The event giving rise to his application was said to have occurred on 4 December 2012 at Hammond Park, a suburb of Perth. In his application Mr Francis said that he was the victim of offences committed by two persons, namely, Angela Colleen Thomson, the appellant before me, and Ivan Lightbody. Both were charged with offences arising out of the incident at Hammond Park. They maintained pleas of not guilty. Both were committed to this court for trial and, at the conclusion of that trial, on 24 January 2014, were found guilty of doing bodily harm to Mr Francis with intent to do bodily harm to him and aggravated burglary. Judgments of conviction were recorded.
On 7 May 2014 both were sentenced by her Honour Judge Sweeney in this court. Ivan Lightbody was sentenced to a term of 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment in respect of count 1, an offence of doing bodily harm with intent to do so and to a term of 3 years' imprisonment in respect of count 2, an offence of aggravated burglary. The two terms were to be served cumulatively. Parole eligibility was refused. The total effective term of 5 years and 6 months was imposed with effect from 18 January 2014 to take into account time spent in custody on remand.
Ms Thomson was sentenced to a term of 18 months' imprisonment on each count, the term imposed in respect of count 2 to be served cumulatively upon that imposed in respect of count 1. The total effective term of 3 years was to take effect from 13 January 2014 to take into account time spent in custody on remand.…

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 Thomson v Francis

Details

AGLC: Thomson v Francis [2016] WADC 154
Case: [2016] WADC 154
Decision Date: 2 NOVEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thomson versus Francis involves an appeal by the defendant against a decision made by an assessor to award compensation to the plaintiff for criminal injuries sustained. The plaintiff, Thomson, had previously been awarded compensation following an attack by the defendant, Francis. The dispute centres on the amount of compensation awarded and whether it was appropriate given the nature and extent of the injuries and other relevant factors. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining whether the assessor had applied the correct legal principles in determining the amount of compensation awarded. The central legal issue was whether the assessment was conducted in a manner that was fair and reasonable, taking into account the statutory framework and relevant case law. The court had to consider whether the assessment process was procedurally sound and whether the amount awarded was commensurate with the injuries suffered.

The court found that the assessor had correctly applied the statutory framework and relevant case law in making the award. The court held that the assessment process was procedurally sound and that the amount awarded was commensurate with the injuries suffered. The court also noted that the plaintiff had suffered significant and lasting injuries as a result of the attack, which warranted a substantial award of compensation. The appeal was dismissed, and the original award of compensation was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, that the original award of compensation be upheld, and that the defendant pay the costs of the appeal. The court's decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that compensation awards for criminal injuries are fair and reasonable, taking into account the nature and extent of the injuries and other relevant factors.

Orders