CREER v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 84

CREER v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES and ANOR SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

COLE and BEAZLEY JJA, and STUDDERT AJA 4 March 1997, 4 March 1997 [1997] NSWCA 84

VICTIMS COMPENSATION ACT 1987 — certiorari claimed based on alleged denial of natural justice — no denial established.

Cole JA By summons the appellant has sought an order in the nature of certiorari, removing the record of the proceedings to the Court of Appeal and an order quashing the orders of Acting Judge Goldring in the District Court of 15 August 1996, such orders being made pursuant to the provisions of the Victims Compensation Act 1987.

The second order sought is that the second respondent, being the Victims' Compensation Fund Corporation, pay compensation in the sum assessed. Although the Victims' Compensation Act 1987 has now been replaced by the Victims' Compensation Act 1996, cl3 in schedule 3 to the 1996 Act makes plain that this application is to be dealt with in accordance with the repealed Act.

It is established in O'Brien v The District Court of New South Wales! that there is no general appeal to this court. To obtain prerogative relief in the form of an order quashing the decision of the District Court the appellant must bring himself within one of a limited number of established grounds. Relevantly, those grounds are jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness or error of law on the face of the record. The appellant raised only procedural unfairness.

The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The appellant claims to be a primary victim of an act of violence within the meaning of s10 and s11 and this entitled him to compensation pursuant to s19. He claims that on leaving a hotel on 21 May 1994 he was assaulted by an unknown assailants sustaining injury.

Undoubtedly he spoke with police officers on the night of the occurrence and the following day, but it was contended before the Tribunal that he did not make a statement to the police until some fifteen months later. The Tribunal on 31 January 1996 dismissed the claim primarily on the basis that although the applicant sustained injuries on 21 May 1994: