Court decision opening the way for emotional abuse victims to be compensated set aside

A SUPREME Court decision that opened the way for victims of emotional abuse to be compensated through the victims of crime scheme has been successfully appealed.

A SUPREME Court decision that opened the way for victims of emotional abuse to be compensated through Tasmania’s victims of crime scheme has been successfully appealed by the State Government.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania on Tuesday set aside Justice Gregory Geason’s June decision that violence can include emotional abuse and intimidation.

Chief Justice Alan Blow said the outcome of the appeal was “likely to affect a number of pending compensation claims”.

VIOLENCE CAN INCLUDE EMOTIONAL ABUSE, INTIMIDATION

PREMIER SAYS HE WILL CHANGE LAW IF NEEDED

Chief Justice Blow, Justice Helen Wood and Acting Justice David Porter decided to allow the appeal but will publish their reasons at a later date.

Outside court, a Government spokeswoman said the Government did not take decisions to appeal lightly and was “extremely sensitive to the challenges victims can face, including in a court setting”.

“The decision to uphold the appeal supports the Government’s view that such action was necessary to, at the very least, provide clarification to ensure our laws are interpreted appropriately, that the Government acts lawfully and also that our Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioners can do their important work with confidence,” the spokeswoman said.

“When the reasons are provided, the Government will carefully consider them and will assess whether further legislative reforms may be desirable to clarify victims’ rights.”

Justice Geason’s decision arose out of an appeal a Tasmanian woman lodged against a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Commission.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had sought compensation under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act for violence perpetrated by her ex-husband between 2008 and 2015.

The woman’s application for compensation was refused because her former husband’s crimes did not involve physical violence, or violence in its “commonly understood sense”.

Justice Geason upheld the woman’s appeal, saying there was no warrant for the narrow interpretation of the word violence that was adopted in the woman’s case.

“‘Violence’, according to the mainstream definition of the word, is capable of accommodating acts which are intended to cause harm other than through the application of force to the person of another,” Justice Geason said.

“Accordingly I hold that an offence which involves the infliction of harm by coercion and intimidation, emotional abuse and intimidation, and economic abuse, falls within the meaning of an ‘offence that involves violence’ by one person against another for the purposes [of the Act] without the need for physical violence or the infliction of force.”

The state’s Solicitor-General Michael O’Farrell, SC, lodged an appeal against Justice Geason’s decision, arguing the judge erred in law and failed to have proper regard for the fact the type of claims on the compensation fund were deliberately intended to be limited by definition.

Yesterday Mr O’Farrell told the court it was the Parliament’s intention to limit claims to those for physical violence or threats of physical violence.

He also said the fund was “comprised of public moneys so one would expect that the disbursement of the fund would be limited” by the legislation that governed it.

The woman was represented by lawyer Rob Blissenden.

Mr Blissenden said Justice Geason’s decision was consistent with the intention of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act, and said the decision had not opened the door to an “extreme additional range of behaviours” for which claims could be sought.