Victims of Crime QCAT Decisions

This decision considers when a person will be a primary victim under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 when they have experienced domestic or family violence.

Facts

The Applicant was the victim of an alleged incident of domestic violence. The Applicant spoke very limited English. As a result of this language barrier, the Queensland Police Service spoke only to the Applicant’s husband on the night of the incident and proceeded to characterise the Applicant as ‘the offender’. This approach was adopted by the Logan Hospital, who prepared a discharge letter apparently based on information provided by the Queensland Police Service.

The Applicant initially made an application to Victim Assist for financial assistance, which was refused on the evidence from the hospital and police. The Applicant applied for an internal review, which confirmed the decision, and subsequently lodged an application for review by the Tribunal.

Decision

The Tribunal found the applicant was a victim of an act of domestic violence in Queensland, which directly resulted in an injury to her.

Therefore, Victim Assist’s decision was set aside, and the matter was returned for reconsideration with a direction that the requirement of s 25(2) of the VOCAA are met.

Reasoning

The Tribunal heard from the Applicant through material prepared with the assistance of an interpreter. The Tribunal found that, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant’s recount of the events were accurate and she was a victim of an act of domestic violence, which directly resulted in an injury to her.

The Tribunal also ordered, pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, that the names of the parties not be published.

You can read the full decision here: Applicant SIL v Scheme Manager, Victim Assist Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 237

The Applicant filed an application to have a decision on financial assistance from Victim Assist reviewed. The Applicant claimed to be the ‘primary victim’ in an incident where they suffered PTSD after witnessing an attack and being threatened, although there was no physical harm. Furthermore, the Applicant claimed they were subject to police misconduct.

Upon being refused financial assistance, the Applicant attempted to review the application on the grounds stated above, however he commenced the review application some six months out of time. The Applicant sought an extension of time, which Victims Assist refused.

Decision

An extension of time to commence an application for review was refused.

Reasoning

While the Tribunal was satisfied that that given the expressed difficulties with his health, language and literacy issues and cultural issues, there was a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Tribunal found against the Applicant for other relevant considerations.

Particularly, the strength of the case; there was no prejudice to the Applicant during the police interview, and the decision was refused on the grounds the application would be unsuccessful because the Applicant was not a ‘primary victim’ under s 26(1) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld). This is because no offence was committed against the Applicant, and in absence of an offence, there would be no act of violence to satisfy the victim being a primary victim. Further, the Tribunal held that the public has an interest in relevant time limits being enforced in a reasonable manner.

You can read the full decision here: Charlie v Department of Justice and Attornery General (Victim Assist Queensland) [2011] QCAT 443

The Applicant sought leave for an appeal of the decision in Charlie v Department of Justice and Attorney General (Victim Assist Queensland) [2011] QCAT 443, where VAQ refused to allow an extension of time to commence a review application.

Decision

The leave to appeal the financial decision was refused, and no error was found to be made in the decision of VAQ to refuse extension of the decision.

Reasoning

Satisfactory explanation for a delay alone will not be a ground for an extension or review of a decision, where the review has little to no prospect of success.

You can read the full decision here: Charlie v Victims Assist Queensland [2012] QCATA 109

The Applicant applied to Victim Assist for compensation, which had subsequently lapsed, following an act of violence. A second application was made on the basis that the Applicant’s first claim was wrongly assessed by the Victims Acting Service Coordinator. She applied for an internal review of the assessment, and subsequently to the Tribunal to review the internal review decision as well as to extend the time to apply for compensation.

Decision

The review application and the application to extend time were both refused.

Reasons

QCAT can only review VAQ decisions that it has jurisdiction to review under the VOCAA. In this case, a decision arising from a complaint in relation to the manner in which the Applicant’s original application was handled is not one of those internal review decisions. Consequently, with no jurisdiction to hear the matter, QCAT refused to extend time and dismissed the review application.

The Applicant was assaulted in an altercation with a dog-owner. The Applicant had used an airhorn to deter a dog that was barking at him.  The Applicant continued to use the airhorn as he had passed the property and the dog’s owner had arrived to restrain the dog.  The dog was not of an aggressive breed, nor had it been previously reported as a dangerous dog.  He sustained a shoulder injury from the assault. The Applicant applied to VAQ for financial assistance. VAQ granted financial assistance but held that the Applicant contributed to his injury. Consequently, VAQ reduced the financial assistance by 50%

Held: QCAT affirmed the decision of VAQ.

Reasoning: Under s 85(2) of the VOCAA, VAQ may reduce the amount that would otherwise be payable to an Applicant under the scheme on the basis of, among other things, the extent to which the Applicant directly or indirectly contributed to the act of violence that gave rise to their injury.

The Applicant ought to have known that the protracted use of the airhorn would further aggravate the dog – as well as the owner who was doing his best to calm the dog. The Applicant’s unnecessary use of the airhorn increased the volatility of the situation and contributed to the incident resulting in the act of violence.  Consequently, it was held that it was open to VAQ to reduce the financial assistance by 50%.

The Applicant applied to QCAT for an extension of time to review a decision of Victim Assist to grant financial assistance.

Decision

The application for leave was refused.

Reasoning

Under s 124 of the VOCAA, an Applicant has 28 days from the date of a Victim Assist decision to apply for an internal review. Under s 33 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), an Applicant has 28 days from the date of a Victim Assist decision to apply for an external review. Five years had elapsed since the relevant decision of VAQ.

Under s 61(3) of the QCAT Act, this time limitation can be waived “unless to do so would cause prejudice or detriment, not able to be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or damages, to a party or potential party to a proceeding”.

Two key considerations influencing the Tribunal’s decision was whether the Applicant provided an adequate reason for the delay and his prospects of success if the time limit was waived.

The Applicant failed to give an adequate reason for the delay. The Applicant told the court that he waited until it became clear that he needed certain treatment, as opposed to applying for the review within time when the need for the treatment was a mere possibility. The tribunal found that this reason did not appreciate the public interest in the finality of litigation. Additionally, VAQ made clear to the Applicant his rights vis-à-vis the time limits on applying for reviews. At that point in time, 5 years after the expiry of time, VAQ thought the matter was over.

Furthermore, the Applicant’s repeated failed applications for amendments to his grants pointed to his poor prospects of success if the time limit was waived.

The Applicant applied for financial assistance from Victims Assist following an act of violence by his lessor. The lessor had terminated the tenancy and a warrant of possession of the property had been issued. The alleged act of violence occurred when the lessor attempted to regain possession of the property. Victim Assist found no act of violence had occurred.

Decision

With reference to the video provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal upheld Victims Assist’s determination that no act of violence had occurred and no injury was suffered, and therefore assistance could not be awarded.

The Applicant applied to receive financial assistance from Victims Assist. She claimed that she had been assaulted in a burglary which also resulted in damage to her property. Victims Assist refused to provide financial assistance.

Decision

QCAT agreed with the original decision of Victim Assist.

Reasoning

The Applicant failed to prove that that there was a violent act in which she was harmed. The main deficiency in the Applicant’s case was the unreliability of her account. Among other things, she gave an inconsistent account of who assaulted her, how she was assaulted, the extent of her injuries and what medical treatment she required. This unreliability was compounded by conflicting accounts of other witnesses that cast doubt over the nature of the physical altercation and whether her property had been damaged by assailants.

It also was revealed that the Applicant omitted information concerning how she likely provoked the altercation –– which in itself would have entitled VAQ to reduce any financial assistance by up to 100%.

You can read the full decision here: Rosily v Department of Justice and Attorney General (Victims Assist Queensland) [2016] QCAT 492

The Applicant was a primary victim of assault and was eligible for grants of financial assistance. Victims Assist argued that victims should be entitled to financial assistance only in relation to things that they need, as identified by Victims Assist only.

Decision

Affirmed that Victims Assist cannot dictate or take any predetermined stance on what the Applicant’s needs are.

Reasoning

Victims Assist should only consider whether the requirements of the legislation are satisfied, as their objective is providing financial assistance to victims in ways that will help them recover from acts of violence. However, Member Goodman held that such needs are subject to certain conditions, and certain components of the Applicant’s claim were not successful. The Applicant was required to provide proof of psychiatric appointments through invoices. It was held increased rental payments in the new town the Applicant moved to would not ‘significantly’ help her recover from acts of violence and did not accept that the move was ‘unavoidably necessary’. It was also held that the Applicant’s travel costs to visit her family would not ‘significantly help’ her recover from acts of violence.

You can read the full decision here: Thomas v Victim Assist Queensland [2014] QCAT 431

The case considered the ability of the Tribunal, in exercising its review jurisdiction, to consider expenses which were not included in the original application and therefore not considered in VAQ’s internal review.

Decision

The Tribunal held that all categories of expenses falling within the ambit of the original application can be considered afresh regardless of whether they were granted in whole, in part or refused by VAQ. Those claims which fall outside the original ambit of the claim cannot be considered in the Tribunal’s review.

Reasoning

In considering the expenses claimed, the Tribunal held:

1. the scheme is not intended to recompense for material losses but rather to aid from injuries sustained in the act of violence;
2. in a situation of joint ownership, the breakdown of a relationship may cause material loss rather than the act of violence causing the injury;
3. the scheme is intended to recompense the victim rather than a third party who, though affected by the act of violence, is not the Applicant; and
4. the scheme is not intended to recompense expenses incurred before the act of violence occurred.

The Applicant was a victim of serious domestic violence. She received over $46,000 of financial assistance from Victim Assist. This assistance covered counselling, medical, relocation, storage, telecommunications and security expenses. The Applicant complained that these grants were insufficient. The Applicant requested an internal review of the grants. After a review, Victim Assist determined that no additional grants of financial assistance were warranted. The Applicant then applied for an external review of this determination.

Decision

QCAT agreed with the determination of Victim Assist.

Reasons

Counselling Fees
Under s 132 of the VOCAA, the chief executive of Victim Assist can approve a table of costs payable under the scheme. The table of costs that was in effect at the time provided that Victim Assist would reimburse an Applicant for reasonable counselling costs at the set rate. Under this table, the Applicant could still access nearly $9,000 in counselling costs. The grant was still open and within the three-year period from the violent act in respect of which the Applicant could lodge a claim. Therefore, the real issue was that the Applicant had failed to make a further application for assistance to cover additional counselling costs.

Payment of Motel Receipts
Victim Assist proved that they had fully reimbursed the Applicant for these expenses.

Payment for myotherapy massage
The Applicant wanted to be reimbursed for myotherapy massages that were recommended to the Applicant by her GP. The relevant guidelines published by the chief executive under s 131 of the VOCAA stated that medical expenses will be covered if there is a generally accepted scientific basis for the treatment. It was found that myotherapy massages lack such a basis.

Replacement laptop and printer
Victim Assist makes payments to victims to aid their recovery from injuries sustained in the acts of violence giving rise to eligible grants; it does not compensate generally for material loss. The Applicant did not say whether her laptop and printer were damaged in a violent act, nor did she show how the provision of funds to purchase these items would aid her recovery.

Clothing replacement
Section 39(f) of the VOCAA allows a claim for loss or damage to the clothing that a victim was wearing when the violent act happened. The Applicant already had a claim paid out for damage to clothing. She was entitled to make another claim provided she gave an adequate description of the clothing as stipulated by Guideline 5 that was published by the chief executive.

Payment of storage fees
Victim Assist proved that storage fees claims had been paid. Indeed, the claims had been paid well past the normal allowance of six months.

The Applicant made an application for compensation regarding injuries and trauma she suffered from an assault in 2008, of which the assailant was convicted. VAQ refused financial assistance on the basis that the Applicant was not eligible. After an internal review which affirmed the decision, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review.

Decision

The decision of VAQ was affirmed.

Reasoning

Under s 154 of the VOCAA the Applicant would only be eligible to receive compensation if she would have been able to do so under the previous Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The Applicant would not have been entitled to receive compensation under the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 (Qld) given the conviction of the offence from which she suffered injury occurred in the Magistrates Court, which was excluded from the eligibility under the legislation.

This was an appeal under s 142 QCAT Act where the previous trial dismissed the Appellant’s application for compensation as victim.

Decision

The appeal was refused

Reasoning

The Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 (Qld) applied to persons injured by another party who is convicted on indictment of a personal offence. In the current trial, the person was convicted of a summary offence and not on indictment. As the VOCAA was not in force at the time of the appeal and did not have a retrospective application. Therefore, the victim was not covered under legislation and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal was required to consider and apply the legislative prohibition against granting VAQ assistance where a person has not given reasonable assistance to the police investigation into the act of violence and this failure has prevented the arrest or prosecution of the perpetrator.

Decision

The decision of VAQ to refuse assistance to the Applicant was confirmed.

Reasoning

The Tribunal considered the available evidence afresh as part of the merits review. The Tribunal outlined the available evidence in depth and considered the effect of the Applicant’s different, inconsistent, and contradictory statements during the application and oral hearing. The Tribunal could not place significant weight on the Applicant’s evidence and instead relied upon the contemporaneous police reports. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not give reasonable assistance.

You can read the full decision here: Wheaton v Victim Assist Queensland [2016] QCAT16-105

The Appellant applied to VAQ for financial assistance after being shot. In submissions on penalty the Crown Prosecutor informed the Judge that all the “complainants were effectively involved in a criminal culture”. During the sentencing hearing against the shooter, the Judge stated that the Appellant was “clearly involved in the drug trade”. VAQ rejected the Appellant victim assistance claim on the basis that, on balance, the reason violence had been committed against him was that violence had been his involvement in criminal activity, per s 80 of the VOCAA. The internal review conducted by VAQ relied upon the statements of the Judge and Crown Prosecutor. The Tribunal member at first instance also considered the sentencing statements sufficient to satisfy herself of criminal activity for s 80. The Appellant appealed this decision.

Decision

The Appeals Tribunal found in favour of VAQ on the basis the Appellant’s own statements supported the sentencing Judge’s comments. This meant there was sufficient evidence to support the statements made at sentencing, and the Tribunal Member’s reliance upon this. The appeal was dismissed.

Reasons

The Appeals Tribunal held that whether the facts fall within a provision of the statute will in some categories be classified as a question of law. It was held that in circumstances where statements are made in proceedings about a party who was not on trial and had no representation in that proceeding, as was the case with the Appellant in the shooter’s sentencing hearing, it may not be appropriate to place reliance upon such statements unless they are supported by evidence which provides them with sufficient justification and underpinning. Here, the sentencing statements were supported by the Appellant’s own statement to the police, which causally connected him with criminal activity. This meant there was sufficient evidence to support the statements made at sentencing, and the Tribunal Member’s reliance upon this. The appeal was dismissed.

You can read the full decision here: Doherty v Victim Assist Queensland [2012] QCATA 137

This decision provides a useful introduction to the legislative framework, including the Tribunal’s authority to review decisions made by Victim Assist.

Facts

The Applicant applied to Victims Assist to receive financial assistance after she was allegedly assaulted. Victims Assist refused to provide financial assistance on the basis that the applicant was engaged in criminal activity at the time the act of violence occurred.

Decision

QCAT agreed with the original decision of VAQ.

Reasons

An Applicant cannot receive financial assistance from VAQ if they were involved in a criminal activity at the time the violence occurred. QCAT found that the Applicant assaulted her would-be assailant without provocation, who only hit the Applicant in self-defence.
Although there were competing accounts of what happened, the Applicant’s case was undermined by inconsistencies in her account and the stronger case presented by her would-be assailant who asserted that the Applicant, while intoxicated, lashed out without provocation.

You can read the full decision here: Maddeford v The Scheme Manager – Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Victim Assist Queensland) [2014] QCAT 350

The Applicant applied for review of financial assistance granted by VAQ. The Applicant sustained physical injuries during the murder of her partner, for which she was considered to be a primary victim for the purposes of the VOCAA and therefore entitled to special assistance.  The key issue in the review was the category of ‘victim type’ that applied to the Applicant; VAQ had determined it was a category C act of violence and circumstances, whereas the Applicant maintained it was the more serious category A, and therefore that she was entitled to greater financial assistance. The Applicant also sought review of certain expenses for which there was no internal review.

Decision

The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s injuries did not meet the threshold of a category A act of violence nor a category A circumstance for a primary victim of a category C act of violence. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, it concluded that the Applicant suffered a category C act of violence, following VAQ’s decision thereon, however, that there were category B circumstances, uplifting the financial entitlement. Regarding the expenses that had not been internally reviewed, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review these, and they were dismissed.

Reasoning

The Tribunal was not satisfied by the evidence that there was an attempted murder of the Applicant, and therefore the act of violence against her did not fall under category A.  Rather, it was held that the act was a serious assault, which falls under the definition of a category C act of violence.  With regards to the category of the circumstance of the relevant act of violence, the legal question was whether the Applicant suffered a ‘very serious injury’, which is necessary to satisfy category A circumstances.  This requires the loss or impairment of a bodily function which has resulted in a permanent and significant reduction in quality of life or is otherwise very serious.  The Tribunal held that the medical evidence did not show the assault of the Applicant caused a very serious injury, but rather a serious injury, and therefore the Applicant had suffered category B circumstances.

You can read the full decision here: LA v Department of Justice and Attorney General [2018] QCAT 272

The Applicant was the victim of an assault occasioning bodily harm in which the perpetrator was charged. The Applicant suffered significant trauma to his eye which required surgery and suffers from a watery eye, which medical evidence stated “could be treated by tear duct probing”. VAQ granted the Applicant financial assistance for a Category C act of violence. A subsequent internal review increased the financial assistance to that of a Category B. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal to review the internal review decision.

Decision

The Tribunal considered the operation of the excluding part of the definition of “very serious injury”, which excludes injuries which “would stop being very serious if it were subjected to other treatment”. The Tribunal held that the legislation should be read narrowly to preserve the scope of the beneficial effect of the legislation. In doing so, “would stop being serious” was read as “will stop being serious”.

The Tribunal held that the possibility that the Applicant’s watery left eye “could” be treated by tear duct probing did not amount to “would” within the exclusionary part of the definition for “very serious injury”. Accordingly, the Tribunal elevated the grant payable to a Category A act of violence.

You can read the full decision here: White v Victims Assist Queensland [2018] QCAT 287

This was an appeal by Victim Assist of the decision made in LA v Department of Justice and Attorney General [2018] QCAT 272. Victim Assist challenged how the legislative test was applied by the Tribunal when determining determine whether the Respondent was entitled to special assistance by virtue of suffering category B circumstances for a primary victim of a Category C act of violence.

Decision

The Appeals Tribunal held that, though the Respondent suffered a serious injury, she did not satisfy the definition for a Category B circumstance, but rather, Category C. As such, the Respondent could not receive the related compensation.

Reasoning

The Appeals Tribunal had to apply a legislative test to determine whether the Applicant was entitled to special assistance by virtue of suffering Category B circumstances. Category B circumstances are defined in the VOCAA to mean:

“Category B circumstances, for a primary victim of a category C or D act of violence, means—
(a) the victim has, as a direct result of the act—
(i) suffered a serious injury; or
(ii) been a victim of a series of related crimes; or
(iii) suffered a deprivation of liberty; and
(b) when the act of violence was committed or, if the act of violence involved a series of related crimes, when 1 or more of the acts were committed, the victim was—
(i) a child under 16 years; or
(ii) a person over 60 years; or
(iii) a person with impaired capacity.”

The Appeals Tribunal held that the Tribunal was required to consider whether the entire definition of category B circumstances applied to the Respondent rather than just the requirements contained in (a). As the Tribunal had failed to consider if paragraph (b) of the definition for category B circumstances applied to the Respondent, the decision of the appeal was allowed.

You can read the full decision here: Victim Assist Queensland v LA [2019] QCATA 142

This was an appeal by Victims Assist against the decision made in BN v Department of Justice and Attorney General (Victims Assist Queensland) [2012] QCAT 283, to allow financial assistance sought for the Applicant’s spiritual healing program.

Decision

The Tribunal’s original decision was overturned by the Appeals Tribunal.

Reasoning

The decision was overturned on the basis that the Tribunal erred by failing to make a finding whether the travel and treatment was classified as “medical” or “counselling” or “other” and remitted it back to the Tribunal for determination with a different Member.

The Applicant was a victim of crime and commenced a review of VAQ’s decision. The hearing was to be outside of Brisbane and VAQ applied for leave to attend the hearing by telephone.

Decision

VAQ’s application to attend the hearing remotely was refused.

Reasoning

The Tribunal stated that the original decision maker has an obligation to use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal and that it is an essential ingredient for an efficient hearing to have both parties communicate on an equal footing. The Tribunal stated it was not persuaded that VAQ did not have capacity to send representative to the hearing especially in circumstances where the VOCAA provided an external process.

You can read the full decision here: BN v Victim Assist Queensland (No 2) [2012] QCAT 287

This was a rehearing after the Respondent succeeded in an Appeal (Victim Assist Queensland v BN [2012] QCATA 254). The Tribunal’s original decision was overturned by the Appeals Tribunal on the basis the Tribunal erred by failing to make a finding whether the travel and treatment was classified as “medical” or “counselling” or “other” and remitted it back to the Tribunal for determination.

Decision

The Tribunal confirmed VAQ’s decision to refuse assistance for travel to Canada and the counselling program.

Reasoning

The treatment was best categorised as “other expenses” under s 39 provision of ‘composition of assistance’ in the VOCAA; the legislation doesn’t expressly state the expense must be reasonable however the Tribunal accepted that this is appropriately implied. While the Tribunal accepted that the Applicant had “exceptional circumstances” which made her recovery from the PTSD suffered challenging, and despite the material provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the treatment sought would significantly assist her to recover from the act of violence or indeed her condition of PTSD, nor that the need for this treatment arises solely from that act of violence, and therefore was not a reasonable expense.

You can read the full decision here: BN v Victim Assist Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2013] QCAT 379

The Applicant applied to VAQ for financial assistance with medical bills for psychiatric sessions following his complaints of unlawful conduct by a professor. These complaints which were left unfounded, and no further action was taken. VAQ refused to grant financial assistance.

Decision

QCAT affirmed the decision of VAQ.

Reasoning

While the Tribunal accepted that the Applicant suffered depression, anxiety and stress, the Tribunal did not find that an ‘act of violence’ had occurred, because it was not satisfied that the alleged stalking caused the required consequences of either fear or detriment or that the conduct otherwise was an act of violence. Therefore, this was not an injury for which assistance could be given under the VOCAA.

You can read the full decision here: Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland [2016] QCAT 173

The Applicant applied to VAQ for financial assistance following an alleged physical attack by a workmate in 1995, which he reported to police in 2009, and applied to VAQ in 2015. VAQ refused to grant assistance on the basis that it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offence had occurred. The Applicant applied for an internal review, which confirmed the decision.

Decision

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of VAQ.

Reasoning

While an application for financial assistance could be made by a person who suffers injury, with the provision relevant to the Applicant being s 663D(1)(c) of the repealed Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), this requires the offence to be reported to police “without delay” in order to be entitled to seek financial assistance under s 159 of the VOCAA. In this case, there was a 13+ year delay until the crime was reported. Since the Applicant was 22 years old when the alleged offence occurred it was no defence that he was too young to understand the criminality involved or role of the police. Furthermore, the alleged incident did not constitute an indictable offence. Therefore, he did not have a preserved right of application.

You can read the full decision here: Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland [2016] QCAT 345

This was an application to re-open an appeal before the Appeals Tribunal.

Decision

The application was dismissed.

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that it had no power to reopen a proceeding that is or has been the subject of an application for leave to appeal or appeal, including after it has been decided. Reopening the applicant’s appeal would impermissibly undermine the finality of the tribunal’s decision-making powers and functions, and the application must be refused as a matter of law.

You can read the full decision here: Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland [2017] QCATA 120

This appeal regarded an application for financial assistance for an alleged attack by a workmate in 1995, 13 years prior to the incident being reported to police and 20 years prior to applying to VAQ. The Appellant claimed he was denied an oral hearing, and that the decision was made prematurely and without waiting for the Queensland Police Service to complete its investigations.

Decision

The Appeal was dismissed.

Reasoning

The Appellant was given the opportunity to appear at the Tribunal directions hearing where he could have requested an oral hearing of his review application, or otherwise applied for an oral hearing after receiving directions. The Appellant was given the opportunity to file all material upon which he sought to rely in the review application. At no stage of the proceeding did the Appellant attempt to explain the delay in reporting the incident to the Queensland Police Service, nor was there an intention to explain the delay. Therefore, it was not illogical or irrational for the Tribunal to conclude that the requirement to report the offence without delay had not been satisfied. As such, there was no failure to afford the Appellant procedural fairness in not according him an oral hearing.

You can read the full decision here: Spinosa v Victim Assist Queensland [2018] QCATA 3

The review relates to an application in 2018 for financial assistance pursuant to the provisions of the VOCAA. In the application, the Applicant alleged that he suffers from psychological trauma resulting from an assault by an unknown person on or about 1 December 2011. The application was accepted by VAQ pursuant to s 54(2) of the Act, even though s 54(1) of the Act stipulates that a claim must be made within 3 years after the act of violence, however, it was refused by VAQ. The Applicant requested an internal review, which confirmed VAQ’s decision on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence that an act of violence occurred, nor that the Applicant suffered and continues to suffer an injury as a direct result of the alleged act of violence.

Decision

The review application was dismissed.

Reasoning

The medical evidence provided no foundation that the Applicant suffered an injury as a direct result of the alleged incident in 2011, and thus was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of s 25 of the Act. The Tribunal held it was unnecessary to make further findings as to whether a crime was committed to begin with.

You can read the full decision here: Spinosa v Scheme Manager, Victims Assist Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2024] QCAT 349