CEL v Commissioner of Victims Rights (No. 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 100

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CEL v Commissioner of Victims Rights (No. 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 100 Hearing dates: 24 March 2016 Date of orders: 20 May 2016 Decision date: 20 May 2016 Before: M Riordan, Senior Member Decision: 1. The decision made by the Senior Assessor upon Internal Review on 26 August 2015 is set aside.

2. Award for the applicant in the sum of $10,000.00. Catchwords: Victims Rights and Support – administrative review – Alleged sexual assaults over a period of time – Alleged offender not charged with any offence – Act of violence established on balance of probabilities –Eligibility for victims support - Application of s 44(1) of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 Legislation Cited: Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2013 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CEL (Applicant) Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Women's Legal Services NSW (Applicant) Victims Services (Respondent) File Number(s): 1510588 Publication restriction: A non-publication Order is made under s 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (No. 2) (NSW) in respect of the names of private individuals, and other information which might identify them.

Reasons for decision 1. In these proceedings, which were commenced by an application ('the Application") filed on 24 September 2015, the applicant sought administrative review of a decision made by a delegate of the Respondent in respect of an Application for Compensation that was lodged by the applicant (known by the pseudonym 'CEL'). 2. The respondent objected to the hearing of the application on jurisdictional grounds and a previous decision has been handed down in relation to the jurisdiction dispute: CEL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2016] NSWCATAD 83 ('the Jurisdiction decision'). The present decision does not contain any outline of the content of the jurisdiction decision and it should be read in conjunction with that decision.