HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-05-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Victims of Crime Fund

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:16): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking questions of the Attorney-General regarding victims of crime payments.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It was reported yesterday, or in fact earlier this week, that the family of murdered children Amber Rose Rigney and Korey Lee Mitchell were required to repay the state government the $40,000 they had received from the Victims of Crime Fund before receiving an out-of-court compensation settlement due to the failures of the Department for Child Protection in stopping the siblings' 'preventable' deaths.

Lawyers for Amber and Korey's grandparents, Steve Egberts and Jane Wells, have written to the Attorney, seeking his intervention to see the $40,000 returned to them, arguing the payment was made because the perpetrator pleaded guilty and was not connected with the workings of the department in any way. A spokesman for the Attorney-General told The Advertiser that the government would 'carefully consider and take advice on any request that is received from the family'. My questions to the Attorney are simply:

1. Does the Attorney agree with the initial demand for the $40,000 victims of crime payment to be returned to the state government?

2. When does the Attorney expect a decision will be made with respect to the request for the Victims of Crime Fund payment to be returned to Mr Egberts and Ms Wells?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:18): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I outlined in answer to a question earlier today, my advice is that money, in these sorts of circumstances, isn't being asked to be repaid.

When there is a successful application for a victims of crime payment—and the victims of crime payment is, as I outlined earlier, a scheme of last resort for providing some sort of compensation for someone or someone's family who has suffered as a result of a criminal offence—and where a payment has been made and there is a subsequent civil claim made against the state, my advice is that what typically happens is that that is negotiated or litigated in the usual manner that civil claims are negotiated and litigated. Once an agreement is reached, or through proceedings, I am advised that typically there is a deed of settlement that takes into account anything that is paid from the Victims of Crime Fund.

My advice is it isn't the case that someone is asked to repay money to the state, but typically in a deed of settlement. As I understand it, if there are legal practitioners involved, the legal practitioner will obviously give advice to their client about whether or not to enter into the deed of settlement. The deed of settlement, I am advised, typically provides that whatever the final amount reached is would be minus the victims of crime payment that has already been paid.

In the example I gave earlier, if there was a $10,000 victims of crime payment and there are negotiations and it is decided in the negotiations that $100,000 would be a fair and reasonable settlement for the claim, there would be further negotiations and a deed of settlement reached where the balance—that is, $90,000—is paid. My advice is typically in these cases it is not that anything is sought to be recovered, but that further payments in a civil claim take into account any initial payment from that scheme of last resort.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT