CTC v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 118

CTC v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 118

The first application was properly made under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 because CTC's Foster Mother had a Guardianship Order and therefore satisfied the genuine interest requirement in s 25(1)(b). That application was determined under the old Act. The events alleged in the first and fourth applications were essentially the same, and new evidence or a different alleged psychological injury did not establish a new act of violence. Because the relevant act of violence had already been made and determined under the repealed Act, CTC had no entitlement to victims support under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013, and the Senior Assessor's decision was affirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Victims Support Decision / Determination on the Papers
Outcome
The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 8 December 2015 was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['victims Support' 'transitional Provisions' 'previous Acts of Violence' 'duplicate Applications' 'administrative Review']
['victims Rights' 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['victims Support' 'transitional Provisions' 'previous Acts of Violence' 'duplicate Applications' 'administrative Review']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review of a Victims Support Decision / Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the application lodged by CTC's Foster Mother under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 was properly made and determined." "Whether cl 11 of sch 2 of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 barred CTC's later application for victims support under the new Act." 'Whether the act of violence in the fourth application was the same act of violence as that dealt with under the repealed Act despite different evidence or alleged injury.' "Whether the correct and preferable decision was to affirm, vary or set aside the Senior Assessor's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first application was properly made under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 because CTC's Foster Mother had a Guardianship Order and therefore satisfied the genuine interest requirement in s 25(1)(b). That application was determined under the old Act. The events alleged in the first and fourth applications were essentially the same, and new evidence or a different alleged psychological injury did not establish a new act of violence. Because the relevant act of violence had already been made and determined under the repealed Act, CTC had no entitlement to victims support under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013, and the Senior Assessor's decision was affirmed.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 8 December 2015 was affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 8 December 2015 is affirmed.']