Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Craig Howarth [1997] ACTSC 113 (22 December 1997)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT 1983 AND CRAIG HOWARTH
No. CIC 115 of 1997
Number of pages - 2
Criminal Injuries

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

MASTER CONNOLLY

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Injuries Compensation - Variation of award pursuant to s.18 of the Act.

HEARING

CANBERRA, 27 November 1997 (hearing), 22 December 1997 (decision)

22:12:1997

Appearances

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Little

Instructing Solicitors: Maliganis Edwards Johnson

Counsel for the Territory: Mr K Holmes

Instructing Solicitors: ACT Government Solicitor

ORDER

Order:

1. The award made to the applicant on 18 December 1997 be varied to provide for an additional sum of $1,045 by way of s.5(4) expenses, giving a total award of $10,795.

DECISION

MASTER CONNOLLY

This application for compensation pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act was heard before me on 27 November 1997. I handed down my decision on 18 December, and in that decision I found that the appropriate award of general damages for the applicant was $19,500, but that, because the applicant had contributed to the events which led to the assault, I reduced that sum pursuant to s.15 of the Act by 50%.

No evidence was presented at the hearing by way of a claim for expenses incurred in bringing the matter to hearing. The solicitor for the applicant approached my associate after the decision was handed down, and advised of this oversight. The solicitor for the Territory indicated that the Territory would not object to the late application for costs.

I am satisfied that costs in the sum of $1,045 have been incurred in bringing this matter to hearing, and award that sum pursuant to s.5(4) of the Act. I should state that it is my understanding that such an award is not subject to reduction pursuant to s.15. Section 15 speaks of reduction of the amount of compensation. Section 5(4) provides that, where a person has incurred expenses (other than legal expenses) in bringing an application,

"...the court may, in addition to any compensation awarded"

award that amount. It seems to me that this quite deliberately separates the amount of compensation, which may be subject to a section 15 reduction, from the question of costs. The discretion contained in section 15 seems to me to apply only to the question of compensation, and not to costs.

Section 18 of the Act provides a power to vary an award, and it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case that I exercise that power to provide for an additional award of $1,045 by way of section 5(4) expenses.