|
Where am I now? Lawlink > Homepage > Legislation and Guidelines > s65 Guidelines - Related Acts
|
Print page
|
s65 Guidelines - Related Acts
Section 5(3) provides that:
(3) An act is related to another act if:
(a) both of the acts were committed against the same person, and
(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal or compensation assessor, both of the acts were committed at approximately the same time or were, for any other reason, related to each other.
However, an act is not related to any earlier act in respect of which an award of statutory compensation has been made if it occurs after the award was made.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, a series of related acts, whether committed by one or more persons, constitutes
a single act of violence.
The leading authorities on related acts are those of the Director General of the Attorney General’s Department v District Court of New South Wales and Stark (1993) 32 NSWLR 409
and MJW v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation (1997) 3 NSW Courts Review 33 (District Court). Those decisions were decisions on the Victims Compensation Act 1987 – section 3(3). It will be noted that section 5(3) of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 is in almost similar terms to section 3(3) of the 1987 Act.
In respect of section 3(3)(b) Mahoney JA in Stark said the phrase “at the same time” is to be given a broad and not a narrow operation. The 1996 Act uses the words “at approximately the same time”. His Honour went on to say that if the purpose towards which the acts are directed (such as a purpose of together producing a particular state or condition in the victim) or their being in the relevant sense, part of a single transaction or occasion it may “in appropriate circumstances” mean that they are related in the relevant sense.
Sheller JA comes to the same conclusion as Mahoney JA however he discusses the meaning of the words “for any other reason” in more detail. His Honour enumerates a number of factors to be taken into account when deciding whether or not the acts were, for any other reason related to each other and he says that the existence of any one such factor alone would not be sufficient to make acts related. Those facts are set out in His Honour’s decision.
When introducing the 1996 Act the Government was mindful that the definition of related acts in the 1987Act “has been interpreted broadly, in some decisions of the District Court on matters on appeal from Tribunal determinations. Such interpretation has enabled an award to be made in respect of every single act of violence occurring during a series of acts of violence. There is one case pending where 21 separate offences are claimed with a potential maximum payout of $1 million” (Second Reading Speech, Hansard, Council 15 May 1996).
The Attorney General continues:
“It was never intended by the architects of the scheme that a victim in this circumstance should receive an award for each act of violence.
The new definition provides that where there is more than one act and those acts were committed against the same person and happened approximately the same time, or happened over a period of time and were committed by the same person or group of persons or share some other common factor the victim will only be eligible to make one claim for compensation”.
The tenor of the 1996 Act and its predecessors is to limit the payout of compensation to victims by treating a series of acts as related acts thus constituting a single act of violence.
Evidence that an act is related to another act might include whether the acts were committed against the same person by the same perpetrator or perpetrators; whether or not the acts were part of a “global incident” the nature of the relationship between the parties (involuntary or otherwise) and other matters contained in the evidence filed in the claim when determining whether ‘for any other reason’ as provided by section 5 (3) (b) an act is related to another act.
In determining whether or nor the acts are related acts, assessors will need to consider section 5(3)(a) and (b) and set out the reasoning and evidence when coming to a conclusion whether or not the acts are related acts.
Chairperson
19 March 2009
|
|
