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 Although the Victims' Compensation Act 1987 has now been replaced by the Victims' Compensation Act 1996, cl3 in schedule 3 to the 1996 Act makes plain that this application is to be dealt with in accordance with the repealed Act.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: "There is, however, no evidence to support the applicant's claim that these injuries were suffered in the course of the commission of an offence.". The appellant appealed to the District Court pursuant to s29. Before that court the solicitor for the Victims' Compensation Fund Corporation made clear that there was in issue the question whether the injuries in fact sustained were sustained as the result of "an act of violence". Judge Goldring, in reasons for judgment, found that: "There is no evidence before the court which would satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that an act of violence had apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence and for those reasons I would dismiss the appeal." 1. (Unreported), Court of Appeal 30 August 1996. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS The substantive matter addressed was an asserted denial of natural justice. For that purpose it is permissible for the court to have regard to relevant material placed before it, see Craig v South Australia2, which here would include the transcript and reasons for inclement. The contention of the appellant was that it was not in issue between the parties that he had been assaulted. On the appellant's evidence had he been accepted an offence had been committed. It was said that the trial judge addressed that matter in his judgment as though it was in issue when it was not, and without giving the parties the opportunity to address it by evidence or submissions. The transcript makes clear that is not so. Whilst it is clear that the fact of injury was not in issue the solicitor for the Victims' Compensation Fund Corporation at the opening of proceedings said: "We have a problem with the act of violence, the circumstances and the s20 factor of failing to provide reasonable assistance to the police." They being the issues to be addressed in the District Court proceedings it was a question of fact for the District Court judge to determine whether he was satisfied that the injuries suffered by the appellant resulted from him being a victim of "an act of violence" within the meaning of the act. There was thus no denial of natural justice. Senior Counsel for the applicant sought in oral submissions to extend the notion of denial of natural justice to the proposition that absent evidence to the contrary it was in essence obligatory upon the trial judge to accept the evidence of the appellant that he in fact had been assaulted in the course of the commission of an offence. To my mind that is not an appropriate extension of concepts of denial of natural justice. Accordingly no basis has been established to ground an order in the nature of certiorari and the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Beazley JA I agree. Studdert JA I also agree. COLE JA: The orders of the Court will be that the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel for the Claimant: M D Brown QC/R I Goodridge Solicitors for the Claimant: Firths Counsel for the First Opponent: Submitting appearance Counsel for the Second Opponent: S Norton Solicitors for the Second Opponent: I V Knight (Crown Solicitor) 2. (1995) 184 CLR p163 at 176.