Woodward v Davies - [2021] WADC 73

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WOODWARD -v- DAVIES [2021] WADC 73
CORAM:   PETRUSA DCJ
HEARD:   3 MAY 2021
DELIVERED          :   22 JULY 2021
FILE NO/S:   APP 75 of 2020
MATTER: IN THE MATTER OF Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003
BETWEEN:   LUKE ANDREW WOODWARD
Appellant
AND
CODY WIRI DAVIES
First Respondent
ELIJAH AOTOA JOHN LEILUA
Second Respondent
NOL SAMUEL KENNACH
Third Respondent
JUSHUAN PAGO BISHOP
Fourth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   R CAPARARO
File Number            :   CIC 728 of 2019

Catchwords:

Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Proved offences - Violence - Injury or loss - PTSD - Amount of compensation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Compensation awarded increased to $32,494.75

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr J N Trigg
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	No appearance
Fourth Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms I Inkster appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Attorney General

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Stephen Browne Lawyers
First Respondent	:	Not applicable
Second Respondent	:	Not applicable
Third Respondent	:	Not applicable
Fourth Respondent	:	Not applicable
Amicus Curiae	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Dimitrovska v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 162; (2015) 253 A Crim Reports 407
M‑A G [2019] WADC 174
MBP v LKP [2018] WADC 65
Re Dunne [2014] WADC 131
Re Puterangi [2017] WADC 168

PETRUSA DCJ:

Background

In the early hours of Sunday, 24 April 2016 the appellant was the victim of an assault that occurred on Smart Street, Mandurah. As a consequence of injuries sustained in the assault the appellant lodged an application for criminal injuries compensation on 19 April 2019. A second application was filed by his solicitors on 25 April 2019.
On 4 August 2020 the assessor of criminal injuries compensation awarded the appellant criminal injuries compensation in the sum of $28,127.
Subsequently, on 24 September 2020 the appellant's solicitors provided additional information including invoices for medical reports to the assessor. The additional medical information was dated between 4 November 2019 and 18 December 2019 some nine months before the assessment was undertaken. The assessor was prepared to include the cost of reports incurred prior to 4 August 2020 and amended the award accordingly. The assessor did not consider it within his jurisdiction to further reassess the award.
Consequently, on 12 October 2020 the assessor issued an amended award in the sum of $31,263. The amended award included an additional $3,136 for reports.
The amended award apportioned $29,263 to 'proved offences' and $2,000 to an 'alleged offence'. The assessor also made orders under s 45(1)(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (CIC Act).
The appellant has appealed the amended award on the sole basis that the award was inadequate. The notice of appeal was filed within the required 21 days of the…

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 Woodward v Davies

Details

AGLC: Woodward v Davies [2021] WADC 73
Case: [2021] WADC 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal arises from an assessment of compensation for injuries sustained by the appellant, Luke Andrew Woodward, following an assault in April 2016. The respondents, who have pleaded guilty to their involvement in the assault, did not appear at the hearing of the appeal. The primary issues before the court were whether compensation could be awarded and, if so, the appropriate quantum. The court found that the appellant was the victim of a compensable proven offence and that there was no bar to the making of a compensation order. However, the court found that the appellant was not the victim of a compensable alleged offence. The court assessed the appellant's claim on the basis that he suffered a swollen left eye, a blood nose, and a fractured and eventual removal of tooth 11. The court also found that the appellant suffered distress, discomfort and pain and some social anxiety for a reasonable but limited period of time following the assault. The court awarded the appellant $18,000 for non-pecuniary loss, $3,082.25 for past medical expenses, $8,876.50 for future medical expenses, $150 for travel expenses, and $3,136 for the cost of reports. The total award was $33,244.75, less compensation received, resulting in a total payable of $32,494.75.

The appeal is allowed and the decision of the assessor is set aside. The appellant is entitled to an award of $32,494.75. Only $13,500 may be the subject of proceedings under part 6 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) against the first respondent and only $1,500 may be the subject of proceedings against each of the second, third and fourth respondents.

Orders