JURISDICTION : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION 2003

CITATION : WINGO [2022] WACIC 2

CORAM : C F HOLYOAK-ROBERTS

DELIVERED : 10 MARCH 2022

FILE NO/S : CIC 580 of 2018
CIC 184 of 2021

BETWEEN : KARLENE WINGO
Applicant

Catchwords:

Multiple incidents – Separate offenders – assessment of damages

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 333
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, s 3, s 6, s 9, s 12, s 17, s 19, s 38

Result:

Compensation awarded
Compensation refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Not applicable

Solicitors:

Applicant : Kuscevich & Associates

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

Reasons for Decision:

1 Karlene Wingo (the applicant), who was born on 23 September 1976, made an application for compensation on 3 April 2018 resubmitted on the 16 November 2020. Her applications were for injuries and losses suffered as consequences of proved or alleged offences perpetrated by John Alfred Papertalk (Papertalk) on 2 March 1995, 12 April 1995, 19 April 1996, 31 August 1996, 5 September 2007, 13 September 2007, between 13 February 2009 and 5 April 2009, 6 June 2009, 12 June 2009, 15 August 2009, 28 June 2011 and 1 January 2014 (CIC 580/2018). In addition, the applicant made an application on 12 February 2021 for compensation for injuries and losses she suffered as a consequence of an incident on 9 July 2015 perpetrated by Bianca Louise Abdullah (Abdullah). She also made separate applications in relation to other incidents and offenders that do not form part of these reasons.
2 In relation to the claim relating to Papertalk, on 23 February 2022, I awarded the applicant $27,895 compensation for incidents on 13 August 2010, 13 November 2009, 15 August 2009, 6 June 2009, 5 April 2009, between 2 April 2009 and 5 April 2009, between 13 February and 14 February 2009 and on 31 August 1996. On the same day I refused the applicant’s application for and incident which occurred on 1 January 2014 as I was not satisfied an alleged offence was committed on that date nor that the applicant suffered injuries as a consequence of the commission of an alleged offence.
3 I also refused her application in relation to the incident on 28 June 2011 as I was not satisfied an alleged offence was committed by the alleged offender on that date. In addition, her application in relation to an incident on 12 June 2009 was refused as the alleged offence was committed by someone other than the alleged offender. I refused her application for an incident on 5 September 2007 as I had insufficient particulars of the incident to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities an alleged offence occurred. Finally, I refused her application for incidents on 19 April 1996, 12 April 1995 and 2 March 1995 as I had insufficient evidence to satisfy me alleged offences were committed on those dates by the alleged offender.
4 In relation to the claim relating to Abdullah, having allowed the application pursuant to section 9(2) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (the Act), I awarded the applicant $4,000 compensation for the incident which occurred on 9 July 2015.
5 By letter e-lodged on 24 February 2022, the applicant’s solicitors, Kusevich & Associates, requested my reasons for decision in relation to the claim regarding Papertalk and by letter e-lodged 2 March 2022 requested my reasons for decision in relation to the claim regarding Abdullah. These are set out below.
PAPERTALK
6 The applicant’s application was made pursuant to sections 12 and 17 of the Act. Section 12 authorises an assessor to award an applicant compensation if satisfied a claimed injury and any claimed loss occurred as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence. Proved offence is defined in section 3 of the Act to mean a crime, misdemeanour or simple offence of which a person has been convicted. Section 17 of the Act authorises an assessor to award an applicant compensation if satisfied the claimed injury and any claimed loss occurred as a consequence of the commission of an alleged offence. Alleged offence is defined in section 3 of the Act to mean a crime, misdemeanour or simple offence of which no person has been convicted.
7 I will first deal with the offences for which the applicant’s application was refused and thereafter will provide reasons in relation to the offences and alleged offences for which the applicant’s application was allowed.
Refused incidents
Incident – 1 January 2014
8 The applicant claimed compensation for an incident on 1 January 2014. In her victim impact statement dated 12 June 2018 the applicant stated she went to Mullewa to look for her sister’s baby. Papertalk saw her and asked her if she wanted to go for a drive to New Forrest Station for an uncle’s birthday. She agreed to go along to have a few drinks. The following morning they drove back to Mullewa and engaged in an argument. The applicant, who was sitting in the back seat, said she asked the alleged offender to stop the car but he refused to do so. She said Papertalk then attempted to reach over to assault her but was unable to reach her. She asked him again to stop the car otherwise she would jump. He did not stop so she opened the back door and jumped out of the car landing on her right hand. She said Papertalk called an ambulance which took her to Mullewa District Hospital, then to Geraldton Hospital. From there she was flown by Royal Flying Doctor Service to Royal Perth Hospital. She complained of a lack of sensation in her right hand. She underwent surgery stating doctors took a nerve from her leg and put it into her right hand. She has a scar on her leg and arm as a result of that procedure.
9 The incident was reported to police, so I obtained documents from the Western Australian Police for that incident. The contents of the police incident report were consistent with the applicant’s victim impact statement save for the alleged attempted assault by Papertalk. Police record in the incident report the applicant was sitting in the back left hand seat of the car with her children. She had Carlton Dry stubbies in a holding pocket behind the front passenger seat which she was drinking whilst travelling back to Mullewa. On the way, it is recorded the applicant and Papertalk were talking about the breakup of their relationship. On approaching a cattle grid, out the front of the Bullardoo Station, Papertalk slowed the car to go over the grid when the applicant, who is recorded as being heavily intoxicated, opened the door and jumped out of the vehicle while travelling at approximately 60 kilometres per hour. Papertalk returned to where the applicant was lying on the ground and poured water on her to wake her up as she was unconscious. He then placed the applicant in the vehicle and drove to Mullewa Hospital so she could receive treatment for her injuries. It is recorded in the running sheet of the police incident report on 1 January 2014, the applicant advised police she and Papertalk were travelling back to Mullewa after spending the night at New Forrest Station. She said they were talking about why their relationship had ended when she, whilst heavily intoxicated, opened the back door and jumped out. Photographs in the police brief are of the applicant in hospital with an injured right wrist, an abrasion to the left eyebrow and cuts to her lips. The Mid-West Country Health Service discharge summary contained in the police brief, identifies the applicant was referred to Royal Perth Hospital by Sajid Qamar, Surgical Resident. It is recorded in the summary the applicant suffered a post traumatic right C7 transverse process fracture and right brachial plexus injury. The summary also recorded the applicant had an argument with her partner in the car ‘yesterday evening’ (that is 1 January 2014) and jumped out of a moving vehicle at 40-60 kilometres per hour landing on the right side of her body whilst intoxicated. She complained of severe pain in the right arm and was unable to move the right arm. Previous bleeding from the left ear had ceased on presentation to the Emergency Department. On examination she was noted to have bruising to the right forearm and forehead, right arm paralysis, with no sensation. A past medical history of alcohol abuse and pancreatitis was recorded.
10 The in-patient discharge letter from Royal Perth Hospital dated 5 January 2014 identified the applicant suffered a number of injuries including an avulsion of the C5/6 nerve roots of the right brachial plexus, the middle trunk appeared injured possibly avulsed, a C8 nerve root avulsion from the cord and extensive soft tissue oedema. The conclusion was the applicant suffered severe traumatic right brachial plexus injury, ligamentous injury to the cervical spine with torn ligaments and suspected cord oedema at C4-C5 level. She also suffered a C7 fracture.
11 No person was charged with the commission of the alleged offence on this date. Therefore, I considered her application pursuant to section 17 of the Act. To award compensation I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, the applicant’s claimed injury and any claimed loss occurred as a consequence of the commission of an alleged offence.
12 There are some differences between the applicant’s victim impact statement made approximately four and a half years after the incident and the contemporaneous records of police and hospital staff. Specifically, the applicant alleged in her victim impact statement Papertalk attempted to assault her before she decided to jump out of a moving car. Having considered the matter, I preferred the contemporaneous evidence provided by the applicant to police and hospital staff and was not satisfied Papertalk attempted to assault the applicant prior to her exiting the vehicle. In addition, I was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence to conclude Papertalk was depriving the applicant of her liberty such as to constitute an alleged offence pursuant to section 333 of the Criminal Code.
13 On the information available to me I concluded the applicant was the author of her own misfortune as, in an intoxicated state, she chose to jump out of a moving vehicle. Whilst the applicant said she did not report the incident to police, there was an incident report made on 1 January 2014 generated from information gained from the applicant. There is no mention in the incident report or running sheet that the applicant jumped out of the car to avoid being hit by the alleged offender. Even on her own version of events in her victim impact statement she jumped out of the car because the alleged offender did not stop the car when she asked him to do so. Taking the applicant’s version of events at their best, I was still unable to find an offence had occurred.
14 Therefore, I was not satisfied an alleged offence occurred and refused her application for this incident.
Incident – 28 June 2011
15 The applicant claimed compensation for injuries suffered in an incident on 28 June 2011. She alleged in her statement of events dated 18 February 2020 she was hit on the head with a metal pot by Papertalk. She suffered a haematoma and a small laceration to her head. She said she attended Geraldton Hospital for treatment but had no recollection of the incident. She alleged Papertalk was the perpetrator because she had not been assaulted by any other person.
16 Information from St John Ambulance identified ambulance officers attended pos‑assault and noted the applicant was bleeding from her head. They observed the applicant appeared intoxicated and had a two centimetre laceration to the top of the right side of her skull.
17 It was recorded in the medical notes from Geraldton Hospital the applicant complained of being hit with a metal pot over the head. Limited history was noted. She was observed to be intoxicated but coherent and complained of headache and scalp pain. She was diagnosed with a haematoma and small laceration and kept overnight for observation.
18 Documents obtained from the Western Australian Police included an incident report. Police recorded in the incident report on attendance, they located the applicant heavily intoxicated. She told police her uncle and others had been drinking together and claimed to have had an altercation with her uncle who hit her in the head with a metal frame from the stove causing a minor cut. There were no witnesses noted to the offence. She nominated her uncle, CL, as the alleged offender though he was noted not to be at the scene. Police advised her to attend the station when sober before they could continue with the investigation. It is recorded in the running sheet to the incident report the applicant did not attend the station to provide a statement. All witnesses declined to identify the alleged offender and on 28 June 2011 the running sheet records the applicant was unsure if she wanted to proceed with any charges though she told police she would attend to make a formal statement. She was advised if she did not do so the case would be closed. It was recorded in the running sheet the following day the alleged offender was not added as a person of interest because the applicant was unsure/unwilling to charge. She did not subsequently attend the station to provide a statement. As such the police investigation ceased.

19 No person was charged with the commission of this alleged offence. I therefore considered the applicant’s application pursuant to section 17 of the Act. On the information available to me the applicant identified CL as the alleged offender and not Papertalk. As such, I wrote to the applicant’s solicitors on 23 September 2021 advising I was not satisfied an alleged offence was committed by Papertalk on 28 June 2011 and would refuse her application although her application could be amended to name the correct alleged offender. I also advised the applicant’s solicitors if an amendment was made my preliminary view was the application should be refused because the applicant did not comply with section 38 of the Act; ergo she did not attend the police station to make a formal complaint and provide a statement so as to identify the alleged offender. In addition, I alerted her solicitors to the need for an extension of time as her application for that incident had been lodged out of time.
20 After being granted an extension of time to respond, the applicant’s solicitors responded to my preliminary view by letter dated 17 November 2021 and stated the applicant maintained CL was the alleged offender and not Papertalk and the applicant did not wish to proceed with an application regarding the incident on 28 June 2011. As such, I refused her application for compensation for an incident on this date.
Incident – 12 June 2009
21 The applicant claimed compensation for injuries and losses as a result of an incident on 12 June 2009. In her statement of evidence the applicant claimed to have suffered injuries to the face with lumps to her head and facial swelling as a consequence of an assault. She attended Mullewa Hospital for treatment. Hospital records record the applicant was hit in the face and head and had a lump on the right side of head. She was observed to have a swollen nose and was swollen under the right eye. She had a red mark to her upper lip which was also noted to be swollen. It is recorded in the hospital notes the applicant said she argued with ‘Julie Ryan’ and Julie’s daughter, ‘Jolene’ which escalated to a physical fight.
22 No person was charged with the commission of an alleged offence, so I considered the applicant’s application pursuant to section 17 of the Act. According to the hospital notes which were taken contemporaneously to the incident, the applicant identified someone other than Papertalk as the alleged offender. As such I was not satisfied the applicant suffered injury as a result of an alleged offence committed by Papertalk and refused her application.
Incident – 5 September 2007
23 The applicant claimed compensation for an incident which occurred on 5 September 2007. In her statement of events dated 12 June 2018 she said on the 13 September 2007 she asked the police to visit her in relation to an unrelated matter and whilst there reported to police that on 5 September 2007 the alleged offender punched her whilst they were on the front veranda of her house. She said the police attempted to help her find a refuge. She made this complaint to the police in the context of wanting to get away from the alleged offender. On 13 October 2007 the alleged offender was spoken to by police and denied any abuse. There was no formal complaint made to police about this incident, other than having been mentioned when police attended upon the applicant on 13 September 2017 for an unrelated matter.
24 The applicant bears the onus of proving an alleged offence occurred on that date. Pursuant to section 3 ‘satisfied’ means satisfied on the balance of probabilities. The applicant provided little information to police about the incident. The complaint was made in the context of wanting assistance from police to get away from the alleged offender because she said she was sick and tired of being treated like a child. The alleged offender denied any abuse. In circumstances where both explanations are equally plausible and there is no reason to prefer one version of events over the other, I was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities there was sufficient evidence to satisfy me an alleged offence occurred, and I refused her application.
Incident – 19 April 1996
25 The applicant claimed compensation for an alleged offence which occurred on 19 April 1996. In her statement of evidence, the applicant said the alleged offender hit her on the head. She suffered pain to the head and had a swollen area on the top of her head. She also said she suffered a deep large laceration to the scalp requiring sutures and attended Mullewa Hospital for treatment on the 19 and 21 April 1996. On 30 November 2021, pursuant to section 19 of the Act, I issued a notice to Mullewa Hospital for a copy of the applicant’s medical records. The documents provided from Mullewa Hospital did not contain any notes in relation to the alleged incident on 19 April 1996. There does not appear to have been any complaint to police of the incident. As no person was charged with the commission of an alleged offence, I considered the applicant’s application pursuant to section 17 of the Act. On the information available to me there was insufficient evidence to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities the applicant suffered an injury as a result of an alleged offence on this date and I refused her application.
Incident – 12 April 1995
26 The applicant also claimed compensation for an incident which occurred on 12 April 1995. In her statement of evidence she said Papertalk elbowed her in the stomach whilst she was four months pregnant. She suffered cramps and heavily bleeding on the 14 April 1995. She said she attended Mullewa Hospital for treatment and I referred to records already provided pursuant to the notice issued referred to above. Those notes provided no indication of the applicant attending for treatment for an incident on or about 12 April 1995 and as such I was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities an alleged offence occurred and refused her application.
Incident – 2 March 1995
27 The applicant also claimed compensation for an incident on 2 March 1995 alleging in her statement of evidence Papertalk kicked her to the left cheek bone which caused it to become swollen. She said she attended Mullewa Hospital for treatment, but pursuant to documents received under section 19 notice issued to the hospital, there was no reference of this incident in the notes. As such I was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities an alleged offence occurred and refused her application.
28 I will now turn to the incidents for which compensation was allowed.
Compensation Allowed
Incidents – 13 August 2010, 13 November 2009, 15 August 2009, 6 June 2009, 5 April 2009, 31 August 1996, between 13 February 2009 and 5 April 2009
29 All of the above dates were successful applications for which she received an award of compensation. I will deal with these incidents separately.
Incident – 13 August 2010
30 On the 15 December 2010 the offender was convicted of breach of violence restraining order for an incident which occurred on the 13 August 2010. I was satisfied a proved offence was constituted pursuant to section 12 of the Act. As to the circumstances, the applicant said Papertalk drove past her in his car and did a U-turn, stopping at the front of her house. He motioned with his hand for her to go and see him. She refused to do so and he drove away. Papertalk told police he went to see someone else to pick up clothes and did not know the applicant was there. He said she came out yelling and was intoxicated so he drove away. There was no physical violence alleged in relation to this incident, although the applicant stated she suffered psychological trauma. In support of her application for compensation for psychological trauma she provided a medical report from Dr Frederick Ng dated 1 August 2018. There is no specific mention of this incident in Dr Ng’s medical report, although he reported the relationship had ended in approximately 2008 after which she had taken out a violence restraining order which Papertalk had breached on many occasions. This, together with identified and non-identified incidents contributed to her psychological presentation. As a result of this and other incidents with this offender and other offenders, the applicant was diagnosed by Dr Ng with an unspecified trauma related disorder with disassociated depressive symptoms, though the post trauma anxiety symptoms fell short of a diagnosis of PTSD. Dr Ng formed the view as a consequence of the physical and emotional abuse arising from her relationship with Papertalk she developed this disorder and those symptoms which were exacerbated by other incidents perpetrated by other offenders. I was therefore satisfied this incident, whilst not specifically referred to in Dr Ng’s report, was a contributing factor to that diagnosis and those symptoms. I therefore awarded her $1,000 compensation for this incident.
Incident – 13 November 2009
31 In her victim impact statement the applicant alleged Papertalk took her keycard and would not allow her outside her residence. It was recorded in the incident report obtained from the Western Australian Police Papertalk approached the applicant in the street and the applicant asked him to “go” and walked away. Papertalk followed and tried to talk to her. She started to run to call police and Papertalk gave chase. The applicant went into a hotel to call police and Papertalk ran away. Papertalk was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Mullewa on the 15 December 2010 of breach of violence restraining order as a result of that incident. I was therefore satisfied a proved offence pursuant to section 12 of the Act was constituted. There was no mention of this specific incident in the report from Dr Ng. However, as with the previous incident of the 13 August 2010 I was satisfied this incident was part of her overall psychological presentation and found she suffered psychological injury as a result of it. I therefore awarded her $1,000 compensation for this incident.
Incident – 15 August 2009
32 In her victim impact statement the applicant said Papertalk entered her house whilst she was away. When she came home, he grabbed her in front of her children. She broke free and ran. When she returned home the children were missing so she reported it to police. In the incident report obtained from the Western Australian Police it is recorded Papertalk attended the applicant’s premises and gained entry awaiting her return. When she returned, Papertalk opened the front door and pulled her into the house. It is recorded she struggled and broke free, staying out all night drinking. She returned home to discover the children missing so she called police. This incident is mentioned in Dr Ng’s report, although he noted the applicant could not clearly recall this incident which was not unsurprising given the number of violent incidents which occurred over the lengthy period of her relationship with Papertalk and thereafter. Papertalk was convicted of aggravated unlawful assault and breach of violence restraining order in the Magistrates Court at Mullewa on 8 March 2010 as a result of that incident. I was satisfied a proved offence pursuant to section 12 of the Act was constituted. I was therefore satisfied this incident contributed to the overall presentation of her psychological sequalae and she suffered psychological injury as a result of it. I awarded $3,000 compensation for this incident
Incident – 6 June 2009
33 In her victim impact statement the applicant alleged Papertalk gained entry to her house. She attempted to call police but one of her children ran away and did so. The police incident report recorded the applicant returned home and Papertalk ran from the rear garden and brushed past her through the front door of the house where he entered the main living area. He pled with her to see the children. She demanded he leave. A child grabbed a phone and ran to call police. Papertalk left and ran off on foot. Papertalk was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Mullewa on 8 March 2010 of breach of violence restraining order. I was satisfied a proved offence pursuant to section 12 of the Act was constituted. This incident is mentioned in the report from Dr Ng who recorded the applicant said there were many occasions when Papertalk breached a violence restraining order and she may have a vague recollection of that incident. As with the previous incidents, I was satisfied this incident was part of her overall psychological presentation and sequalae and that she suffered a psychological injury as a result of it. I awarded her $1,000 compensation for this incident.
Incident – 5 April 2009
34 In her victim impact statement the applicant said she was at her sister-in-law’s funeral when Papertalk came to the house in breach of a violence restraining order and threatened to kill her. He struck her to the left eye with his fist causing her to fall to her knees and then he kicked her. Hospital notes from Mullewa Hospital noted Papertalk threatened to kill the applicant, punched her to the eye and pulled her hair. She fell to her knees suffering abrasions and grazing and a sore upper leg. This incident is mentioned in Dr Ng’s report as having occurred on 6 April 2009 and it is recorded she could not clearly recall the incident. She reported she had been punched and kicked so many times she could not recall what this particular incident was about. Papertalk was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Geraldton on 28 April 2009 of 2 counts of breach of violence restraining order. I was therefore satisfied proved offences pursuant to section 12 of the Act were constituted and suffered injuries as a consequence of them. I awarded her $5,000 compensation for this incident.
31 August 1996
35 In her statement of evidence the applicant said she was involved in an argument with Papertalk. She alleged he hit her on the side of the head causing her to suffer a sore ear. She noticed blood on the pillow the next day and attended Mullewa Hospital for treatment. Hospital notes identified the applicant complained of bleeding from the left ear after being hit on the side of the head. However, there was no evidence of bleeding on examination and she was treated with Panadol. I have no evidence the incident was reported to police, and therefore considered the matter pursuant to section 17 of the Act. Given the incident was recorded in the hospital notes with some particularity I was satisfied an alleged offence occurred and the applicant suffered injury as a result of it. I awarded her $2,000 compensation for this incident.
Incidents – between 13 February 2009 and 5 April 2009
36 It is recorded in the police incident report, on the 13 February 2009 Papertalk was driving towards her and did a U-turn and followed her. He approached her and spoke to her when he stopped. The applicant was later visiting a friend in hospital and Papertalk was also there. He approached her car as she parked and asked to speak to her, which she refused. She left the hospital and later saw Papertalk parked out the front of her home and told him to leave but he refused. He manipulated her to allow him to stay with her which he did from that date. On the 2 April 2009 he attended her house and called out to the children. He asked the applicant to iron his shirt and pestered her for sex, which she refused. He generally annoyed her. He was following her around so she would not leave. Between the 2 April and 5 April 2009 he stayed at the applicant’s house to ensure she did not leave. He followed her and monitored her movements. On the 5 April 2009 she went for a walk to her friend’s house. Papertalk turned up wanting to talk to her. He became angry when she refused to do so and punched her to the face. He later returned and parked out the front of the home. From the information in the incident report, two discreet periods of offending were identified; that is between 13 February and 14 February 2009 and 2 April and 5 April 2009 and then on 5 April 2009. Papertalk was convicted of breach of violence retraining order for an incident between 2 April 2009 and 5 April 2009 in the Magistrates Court at Geraldton on 28 April 2009. He was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Geraldton on the same day of 3 counts of breach violence restraining order for the period 13‑14 February 2009 and was convicted of 2 counts of breach of violence restraining order for incidents which occurred on 5 April 2009 on the same date. I was therefore satisfied proved offences pursuant to section 12 of the Act were constituted. Whilst there was no specific mention of these in the report from Dr Ng I was satisfied they contributed to her overall psychological presentation and that she suffered injury. As such, I awarded her $10,000 compensation for the incidents between 12‑14 February 2009 and between 2 and 5 April 2009. The incident on 5 April 2009 has already been addressed in paragraph 33 above.

37 Having considered the physical and psychological consequences experienced by the applicant in relation to the applications that I allowed and having considered the matters relevant to granting the applicant an extension of time to bring her application, I granted an extension of time pursuant to section 9(2) of the Act and assessed her injuries at $23,000 as follows:
13 August 2010 $1,000
13 November 2009 $1,000
15 August 2009 $3,000
6 June 2009 $1,000
5 April 2009 $5,000
31 August 1996 $2,000
between 13 and 14 February 2009 and 2-5 April 2009 $10,000

38 The applicant also made reference in her statement of effects dated 12 June 2018 to additional incidents in 1998, 2004 and 2008 but no specific claim was made for incidents on these dates. As such, I wrote to the applicant’s solicitors on 23 September 2021 asking whether the applicant wished to make claims for these incidents. By letter dated 17 November 2021, the applicant’s solicitors advised the applicant did not wish to make claims for these incidents and clarified the 2008 incident to be 9 November 2008.
39 In addition to the above, the applicant claimed report expenses for Dr Ng in the sum of $1,815 and Dr Slinger in the sum of $3,080. She also claimed the cost of the Freedom of Information Application from the Western Australian Police in the sum of $30, but that item was disallowed as it did not fall within the definition of ‘loss’ under section 6 of the Act.
40 Whilst Dr Slinger’s report was in relation to the injuries she suffered in the incident on or about 1 January 2014, I allowed the cost of that report notwithstanding I refused that application as it was reasonable and necessary for the solicitors to obtain that report in support of her application. I also allowed the cost of Dr Ng’s report in the sum of $1,815. Whilst Dr Ng mentioned incidents by other offenders in that report, I was satisfied the bulk of the report related to the incidents perpetrated by Papertalk and as such allowed the entirety of this invoice in this award. I therefore awarded the applicant $27,895 for injuries and losses with respect to incidents involving Papertalk and made the award accordingly.
ABDULLAH
41 The applicant’s application for compensation for injuries suffered as a result of an incident on 9 July 2015 perpetrated by Abdullah was made pursuant to section 12 of the Act. The application was out of time. It ought to have been lodged on or before 9 July 2018 but was not lodged until 12 February 2021. Given the circumstances of the applicant in relation to her relationship with and offences perpetrated by Papertalk and the contents of the report of Dr Ng, I was satisfied it was just to extend the time within which the applicant could bring her application and granted an extension of time for her to do so pursuant to section 9(2) of the Act.
42 The circumstances of this incident as recorded by Police in the incident report were the applicant and another attended the Wiluna Club Hotel and when approaching the entry, Abdullah shouted “you’re a trouble maker” and punched the applicant to the face. She suffered pain as a result. Abdullah then grabbed the applicant’s hair and punched her. They both fell to the floor. The applicant’s friend intervened to separate the applicant and Abdullah. A second offender then approached, kicked the applicant in the back and pushed her friend in the chest causing her to fall to the ground. Abdullah eventually let go of the applicant’s hair allowing the applicant to stand. She walked to the police station to make a complaint.
43 The circumstances of the incident were described in the statement of material facts as follows:-
At around 1:50 pm on Thursday the 9th of July 2015 the victim and witness were at the Wiluna Club Hotel. As they were approaching the steps to the front door the accused approached the victim and punched her to the face. She said “You’ve been making trouble” She grabbed the victim’s hair and held it whilst she continued punching her in the face. It is not known how many times she was punched. The victim had her right arm in a sling due to an injury so was doing her best to fend off the attack with her left arm. The witness intervened and tried to separate the pair but could not. The victim and accused fell to the floor where the tussle continued. The accused eventually stopped the attack and the victim got to her feet. The victim then told the accused she was going to the Police Station to make a complaint. The victim and witness then attended Wiluna Police Station and made statements. The accused was visited by 1/C DONE at her home address and questioned about the matter. She stated that she heard the victim had been talking about her and accusing her of doing things she hadn’t done. She said that she walked up to her when she saw her at the pub and punched her.
44 There is no mention in the statement of material facts to another person kicking the applicant in the back and no other person was investigated or charged for this incident and in any event the applicant did not complain of any injury to her back.
45 In her statement to police dated 9 July 2015, the applicant said she suffered redness to her left eye. The pain had subsided by the time she completed her statement.
46 Abdullah was convicted of common assault in the Magistrates Court at Wiluna on 18 August 2015. I was therefore satisfied a proved offence pursuant to section 12 of the Act was constituted.
47 The applicant suffered pain and redness to her left eye. There is no mention of this incident in Dr Ng’s report. I was satisfied the applicant suffered pain and redness to her left eye as a result of this incident. I had insufficient evidence to satisfy me she suffered psychological injury as a result of it, though I accept she would likely have suffered immediate shock. After granting an extension of time to bring her application pursuant to section 9(2) of the Act, I awarded the applicant $4,000 compensation for the injuries sustained in this incident and made an award order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Assessor of Western Australia.

C F Holyoak-Roberts, CHIEF ASSESSOR OF CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

10 MARCH 2022