Re the Application of Cynthia Mary Jones of An Extension of Time of the Lodging of An Application and Re the Application By Cynthia Mary Jones Cic [1987] ACTSC 15 (13 March 1987)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER of the application of CYNTHIA MARY JONES for an extension of
time for the lodging of an application
AND IN THE MATTER of the application by CYNTHIA MARY JONES
C.I.C. No. 64 of 1986
Criminal Law

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Miles C.J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - criminal injuries compensation - acquittal of accused - relevance to application for compensation - Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983 (ACT) - no new matter of principle.

Criminal Law - criminal injuries compensation - application for extension of time to commence application for compensation - trial of accused occurred after expiry of time period - Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983 (ACT) s. 10.

HEARING

CANBERRA
13:3:1987

DECISION

The applicant, a female, attended a function known as the "Oktoberfest" at the National Exhibition Centre in Lyneham on 15 October 1983. During the course of the evening she was attacked by a man and as a result of that attack suffered numerous bruises and abrasions. She says in her affidavit filed in support of this application that she also suffered from emotional trauma and depression. The man was committed for trial in this Court on charges of attempted rape, indecent assault and common assault. After the committal but before the trial, the applicant was injured in a motor vehicle collision in September 1984. She suffered serious injuries and was unfit for work until April 1985. The trial came on for hearing whilst she was incapacitated in March 1985, but the jury failed to reach a verdict. A retrial took place in June 1985 when the accused man was acquitted on all charges.

2. In July 1985 the effect of the motor vehicle collision necessitated a total hip replacement and the plaintiff's depression increased. It is likely at that stage that her depression was a result of the combined effect of the attack by the man concerned, her motor vehicle injury, and the strain connected with the court proceedings. It was not until the end of 1985 that the applicant became aware that she had a possible claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance, and there is no suggestion that she even turned her mind to that question before then.

3. S.10(2) of the Ordinance provides that an application for compensation should be lodged within twelve months of the injury and s.10(3) provides that the court may, on application made at any time (whether before or after the expiration of the period referred to in sub-s.(2)) extend the time for the lodging of an application if the court considers it just to do so. The application to extend the time for lodging the application for compensation was filed on 30 May 1986. It is to be observed that if the applicant had lodged her application within the period limited by s.10(2), she would have had to have done so prior to the trial.

4. Kelly J. has held that an acquittal of an accused person does not prevent an application being made under the Ordinance alleging that his conduct was criminal conduct in the sense relevant to the Ordinance: Application of Gilliland (unreported, 14 March 1986). I would respectfully agree with his Honour's conclusions and the reasons therefor. It is necessary at this stage to decide only whether the applicant has a reasonably arguable case that the conduct of her assailant was criminal conduct. I hold that she has such a case. A determination of the factual issues will have to be made by the Judge who deals with the application for compensation itself. In any event I am quite convinced that it is just to make the order sought.

5. The application for extension of time came before me on 20 June 1986. I ordered that time for lodging the application for compensation be extended to 5 p.m. on that date and said that I would give reasons at a later stage. These are the reasons.