JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: VANMARIS -v- ROBERTS [2022] WADC 80
CORAM: RUSSELL DCJ
HEARD: 21 JANUARY 2022
DELIVERED : 31 AUGUST 2022
FILE NO/S: APP 90 of 2020
BETWEEN: ASHA ELISE VANMARIS
Appellant
AND
DENI ROBERTS
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal - Criminal injuries compensation - Proved offence - Appeal on ground assessor's award manifestly excessive - Mental and nervous shock - Whether award of compensation should be reduced on account of victim's behaviour - Turns on own facts
On 28 December 2018, the appellant, Asha Elise Vanmaris, was convicted after Trial in the Rockingham Magistrates Court[1] of the offence of unlawful wounding, contrary to s 301 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) (the offence).
[1] The trial was heard on 27 November 2018: Western Australia Police v Asha Vanmaris, PE 651595 of 2017 (Trial).
The victim of the offence was the respondent, Deni Roberts, who suffered a 3 cm laceration to her forehead requiring three stitches. That injury was sustained when the appellant struck the respondent…
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 Vanmaris v Roberts
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Vanmaris v Roberts [2022] WADC 80
Case
[2022] WADC 80
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Vanmaris, the victim, sought an appeal against the assessment of compensation awarded by Roberts, the assessor, following a crime of violence. The dispute revolved around the amount of compensation granted for the victim's mental and nervous shock. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the award of compensation was manifestly excessive and if the compensation should be reduced considering the victim's behaviour.
The court held that the victim's award of compensation was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the compensation was appropriate considering the severity of the crime and the impact on the victim. The court emphasised that compensation awards for mental and nervous shock should be based on the individual circumstances of each case, and the victim's behaviour should only be considered if it contributed to the shock experienced. In this case, the court found that the victim's behaviour did not significantly contribute to the shock experienced. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the compensation award as assessed by Roberts.