Thomas v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 177

Thomas v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 177

The Tribunal was satisfied that the victim's psychological injury, the Category D recognition payment of $1,500, and travel expenses of $586.37 for attendance on an approved counsellor directly resulted from the act of violence on 2 November 2017 for which the applicant was convicted. However, it was not satisfied that the household items, furniture, educational expenses and other immediate needs or economic loss assistance directly resulted from that relevant offence, rather than from the victim and her daughter leaving the applicant's premises on or about 4 October 2017 after the relationship breakdown. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to vary the restitution order to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Restitution Order Under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (nsw) / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Restitution order varied; applicant required to pay $2,086.37 within 28 days.
Legal Topics
['merits Review' 'victims Support' 'relevant Offence' 'domestic Violence Intimidation' 'financial Assistance for Immediate Needs' 'recognition Payment' 'financial Hardship']
['administrative Law' 'victims Rights and Support' 'restitution'] ['merits Review' 'victims Support' 'relevant Offence' 'domestic Violence Intimidation' 'financial Assistance for Immediate Needs' 'recognition Payment' 'financial Hardship']

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 Restitution Order Under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (nsw) / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether all of the victims support approved for the victim directly resulted from a relevant offence committed by the applicant.' "Whether the restitution order should be confirmed or varied having regard to the applicant's conviction and the support payments made." "Whether the applicant's alleged financial hardship warranted reducing the restitution order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was satisfied that the victim's psychological injury, the Category D recognition payment of $1,500, and travel expenses of $586.37 for attendance on an approved counsellor directly resulted from the act of violence on 2 November 2017 for which the applicant was convicted. However, it was not satisfied that the household items, furniture, educational expenses and other immediate needs or economic loss assistance directly resulted from that relevant offence, rather than from the victim and her daughter leaving the applicant's premises on or about 4 October 2017 after the relationship breakdown. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to vary the restitution order to...

Court Disposition

Restitution order varied; applicant required to pay $2,086.37 within 28 days.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 67(2A) of the Victims Rights and Support Act, the restitution order made by the respondent on 30 November 2021 is varied such that the applicant is required to pay the sum of $2,086.37 to the respondent within 28 days of the date of this order.']