Mr J F W Cardell-Oliver appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice

Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70; (2012) 223 A Crim R 419

Chappell v Bowe [2006] WADC 29; (2006) 42 SR (WA) 143

CME [2018] WADC 69

Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19

Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25; (2017) 91 SR (WA) 137

Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78

Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63

MJN v MAJS (2013) 143 A Crim R 375; (2013) 35 SR (WA) 219

Neall v Watson (1960) 34 ALJR 364

Nguyen v The Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation [2000] WADC 221

Pym v Richardson [2018] WADC 156

Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13

Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158

1. On 1 April 2014 Mr Nurovic (the appellant) pleaded guilty to unlawfully assaulting Ms Nurovic (the respondent) on 27 December 2013 and thereby doing her bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation.
2. Ms Nurovic subsequently lodged a claim for criminal compensation pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2013 (WA) (the Act) and on 10 October 2018 was awarded $47,821.95. Ms Nurovic was to be paid $44,647.95 and the remaining $1,458 was subject to the provisions of s 48 of the Act for future psychological counselling.
3. Mr Nurovic appeals that decision. His appeal was lodged within time.

1. An appeal under the Act is a hearing de novo. The District Court may confirm, vary or reverse the assessor's decision either in whole or part which means it may increase or decrease the compensation awarded by the assessor: Nguyen v The Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation [2000] WADC 221.
2. The appeal is to be determined without being fettered by the assessor's decision. A hearing de novo requires the Appeal Court to consider the matter afresh without regard to any previous decision: cf Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63.
3. The following materials were before the assessor:
   1. Mr Nurovic's appeal notice of 30 October 2018.
   2. Compensation award of 10 October 2018.
   3. Ms Nurovic's criminal injuries compensation application form of 20 December 2016.
   4. Statement of Ms Nurovic of 6 December 2016.
   5. Statement of Ms Nurovic of 28 January 2014.
   6. Photographs of Ms Nurovic from the criminal injuries compensation assessment file.
   7. Victim impact statement of Ms Nurovic of 4 July 2014.
   8. A copy of a letter from Fremantle Community Legal Centre to the Assessor Criminal Injuries Compensation of 21 December 2016.
   9. A copy of a letter of 7 November 2017 from Mr Nurovic to the government of Western Australia.
   10. A copy of a letter of 10 February 2019 from Mr Nurovic addressed to District Court.
   11. Letter Fremantle Community Legal Centre to the Assessor Criminal Injuries Compensation of 19 January 2018.
   12. City of Fremantle loss of income 15 January 2014 to 30 July 2014.
   13. List of medical expenses.
   14. Copy of prosecution notice Fremantle 1439/2014 and court records.
   15. Medical report of Dr Pham dated 14 January 2014.
   16. Letter HBF to Ms Nurovic of 27 February 2014.
   17. Medical certificate Cockburn Medical Centre of 28 February 2014.
   18. Medical report Dr Pham of 18 February 2014.
   19. Medical certificate Cockburn Medical Centre of 28 February 2014.
   20. Medical report Dr Pham of 10 March 2014.
   21. St John of God Hospital operation record of 10 February 2014.
   22. Dr Pham statement of 7 March 2014.
   23. Dr Ng medical report of 11 September 2017.
   24. Fremantle Community Centre letter to Assessor Criminal Injuries Compensation of 21 September 2018.
   25. Police officer's note re interview with Mr Nurovic of 15 February 2014.
   26. Invoice Dr Ng for $1,716 of 6 October 2017.
   27. Department of Justice remittance advice for $1,716.
   28. Return to work program undated.
   29. City of Fremantle letter to Ms Nurovic of 15 July 2014.
   30. City of Fremantle payment advice forms 10 October 2013 to 30 July 2014.
   31. HBF benefits paid dated 25 November 2016.
   32. HBF claims history dated 25 November 2016.
   33. Medicare claims history between 22 November 2013 and 22 November 2016.

1. The court has a wide discretion to determine the matter solely on the evidence and information in possession of the assessor or to receive and admit further evidence on the appeal: s 56(1) of the Act.
2. Further evidence should be admitted unless there is some reason why it would be unjust to do so: Chappell v Bowe [2006] WADC 29; (2006) 42 SR (WA) 143 [37]; Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78 [9].
3. One of the difficulties in this case is that Mr Nurovic did not ask the assessor to provide written reasons.
4. It is not apparent from the file forwarded to the court whether some of the material I have received was considered by the assessor or has been received as further evidence.
5. To put the matter beyond doubt I accept as further evidence the following:
   • Medical file of Cockburn Medical centre detailing consultations from 16 January 2013 through to 13 February 2019 including medical reports from Dr Pham of 8 August 2014, 4 April 2014, 4 January 2014 and 20 February 2015;
   • A letter from Swan River Law dated 12 June 2014;
   • Transcript of Fremantle Magistrates Court 1 April 2014;
   • Transcript of Fremantle Magistrates Court 14 October 2014 (both transcripts were obtained by the court).

1. Ms Nurovic's compensation application was made pursuant to s 12(1) of the Act. To award compensation the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Nurovic suffered an injury and the claimed loss is a consequence of the proved offence.
2. In this case, the proved offence is unlawful assault doing bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation.

1. Mr Nurovic's ground of appeal as set out in his appeal notice of 30 October 2018 is that the decision 'cannot be support by the evidence'.
2. Mr Nurovic's grounds of appeal were further expanded in his letters to the government of Western Australia dated 7 November 2017 and to the District Court dated 10 February 2019.
3. As I understand it, the grounds of his appeal are as follows.
   1. Mr Nurovic says he only pleaded guilty as a result of incompetent legal advice.
   2. Mr Nurovic says he did not break Ms Nurovic's nose.
   3. Mr Nurovic says Ms Nurovic had a pre-existing medical condition.
4. I shall deal with each issue raised.

Ground 1: Mr Nurovic's claim that he only pleaded guilty because of incompetent legal advice

1. Mr Nurovic claims that he only pleaded guilty as a result of incompetent legal advice. He says his then lawyer did not defend the truth, did not have any witnesses at the trial and no questions were asked of Ms Nurovic because of his plea of guilty.
2. Mr Nurovic was charged with the offence on 16 February 2014. He appeared in court on 11 March 2014 when the matter was remanded for legal advice. He pleaded guilty on 1 April 2014 and was sentenced on 14 October 2014.
3. If Mr Nurovic wished to dispute that he assaulted Ms Nurovic he should have pleaded not guilty and the matter would have gone to trial. In the four years since the plea he has not sought to appeal his guilty plea. He cannot now controvert his plea or the material facts that were read to the court upon sentencing.
4. In any event the police notes of the conversation occurring with Mr Nurovic on 15 February 2014 record him as telling the police that he had been drinking a bottle of whiskey, that he got into an argument and punched Ms Nurovic in the face when he lost his temper. He said he could not recall how he hit Ms Nurovic, possibly with an open hand and said he clipped her nose and she stood up and went into the bedroom, grabbed her mobile and there was blood on the pillow in the living room.
5. A plea of guilty to the offence of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation is an admission by Mr Nurovic of all the essential facts which constitute the elements of the offence and which were accepted by the court sentencing him: Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70; (2012) 223 A Crim R 419.
6. The material facts constituting the proved offence cannot now be controverted in a criminal injuries compensation claim: Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13 (Gething DCJ); Pym v Richardson [2018] WADC 156 (Scott DCJ); Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19 (Bowden DCJ).

1. Mr Nurovic says he did not break Ms Nurovic's nose.
2. Mr Nurovic's plea of guilty to the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm in the circumstances of aggravation is incontrovertible.
3. A plea of guilty to the offence of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation is an admission by Mr Nurovic of all the essential facts which constitute the elements of the offence and which were accepted by the court sentencing him: Bennett v The State of Western Australia.
4. The material facts constituting the proved offence cannot now be controverted in a criminal injuries compensation claim: Underwood v Underwood; Pym v Richardson; Guy v Hampson.
5. The court has obtained the transcript of Mr Nurovic's plea of guilty entered on 1 April 2014.
6. After he entered his plea of guilty the magistrate asked for the facts.
7. The prosecutor stated the following:

... 8.00 pm on Friday 27 December 2013, the complainant was at her home address in company with her husband the accused. An altercation developed between the two. While the victim was lying on the catch (couch) the accused struck the victim with the back of his hand once to her face causing bleeding from her nose the accused was accused was arrested and the present charge referred. The accused was arrested and the present charge referred.

By explanation he said 'we were both drinking. She called my mother a bitch, so I got angry and punched her in the face. He is as he appears today. The victim is 53 years of age, 170 cm tall of medium build.

Her Honour: So the injury was a blood nose.

Prosecutor: The injury actually was more severe than that it was a- there's a doctor's report that I have seen that I was currently shown by Mr Hardless. She received a broken nose and actually had to have surgery on it.

Her Honour: There was a broken nose. Okay.

Prosecutor: This only came to light after the brief had been completed and it was quite a serious assault in regards she had to have surgery to have her nose repaired, and had bone removed from behind her ear to - rectify it.

...

Mr Hardless: Further my client has instructed me to admit the aggravating factor they were husband and wife. And he further admits the bodily harm that he struck the complainant in the face once with an open hand.

okay look it is a serious offence. He struck her hard enough to fracture her nose and obviously cause serious damage to the bone.

1. At the time Mr Nurovic entered his plea and the material facts were read, he was represented by counsel. Reference was made to Mr Nurovic's assault breaking the nose of the complainant by the prosecutor and it was specifically referred to by the magistrate and that fact was not contested.
2. The magistrate called for pre-sentence report and Mr Nurovic was sentenced on 14 October 2014. Mr Nurovic was represented on that date. Her Honour stated:

...

It was an assault occasioning bodily harm as her nose was fractured after a strike to her face so it was a serious assault.

1. No challenge was made to that fact that the assault had caused the broken nose. Mr Nurovic cannot come to this court and say that his blow did not break her nose. If he wished to challenge the assertion which was clearly made at the court on both 1 April 2014 and 14 October 2014 he should have raised the issue then and there and it would have been dealt with by the magistrate. It cannot now be raised.
2. The proven offence that is compensable is the assault constituted by the one blow to Ms Nurovic's face which broke her nose. Those facts cannot be controverted by either Mr or Ms Nurovic.
3. Mr Nurovic also relies on the fact that after the incident Ms Nurovic walked through the house, called the police and when the police arrived they did not call an ambulance and left Ms Nurovic alone in the house that night.
4. I reject Mr Nurovic claims that Ms Nurovic's nose was not broken because the police did not see anything suspicious on her face, or any bruising or swelling. Mr Nurovic says the police did not mention anything in their reports about a broken nose. He says Ms Nurovic drove to the GP the next day and worked at the beginning of January 2014 for two weeks fulltime.
5. The evidence establishes that Mr Nurovic told the police that he 'clipped her nose' in the incident and then Ms Nurovic stood up, went into the bedroom and he saw blood on the pillow in the living room.
6. Ms Nurovic states in the incident Mr Nurovic hit her with his hand in the back of the head two or three times, then hit her on the nose so hard her head jerked to the left and she saw blood had come out of her nose. Ms Nurovic said the force of the blow was like a punch and blood went on the couch and sprayed onto the pillow that was on the couch. She cupped her hands to stop the blood flow, obtained some tissues and held it up to her nose to stop the blood flow.
7. Dr Lee's notes on 28 December 2013 refer to bruising and mild swelling on Ms Nurovic's nasal bridge area and Dr Lee requested a CT scan. These notes and notes for the consultations on 8 January 2014 show that painkillers were prescribed.
8. There are several medical reports from Dr Pham dated 14 January 2014, 10 March 2014, 4 April 2014, 8 August 2014 and 20 February 2015 establishing that Ms Nurovic suffered a nasal fracture and Dr Pham was of the opinion that the fracture was consistent with the assault described by Ms Nurovic.
9. I reject the assertion by Mr Nurovic that his assault did not break Ms Nurovic's nose.
10. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Nurovic struck Ms Nurovic in the nose and that caused a fracture to her nose. The plea is incontrovertible and Ms Nurovic's evidence is supported by the independent medical report of Dr Pham and Dr Lee. I find no merit in Mr Nurovic's submissions to the contrary.

1. Any pre-existing condition of Ms Nurovic is to be taken into account in assessing compensation. Section 41 of the Act requires the court to take into account any condition of Ms Nurovic which contributed directly or indirectly to the injury or loss suffered by her and provides that the court may reduce the amount which they would otherwise award by such a percentage as it thinks fit.
2. Whether any pre-existing condition of Ms Nurovic is taken into account because of s 41 or because of the ordinary principles applying to assessment of damages or because s 30 of the Act requires the award to relate to the injuries suffered as a consequence of the offence makes little practical difference: CME [2018] WADC 69.
3. Mr Nurovic says that about 15 years ago Mrs Nurovic visited Kelso Medical Group and asked the GP about operating on her nose because she had difficulties with her breathing which resulted in her snoring.
4. Mr Nurovic says the GP advised her that the operation may be difficult and it would take a long time for her recovery and unless there was a major problem she should not undergone the operation. Mr Nurovic says she did not undergo the operation.
5. There is no medical evidence to establish any issue with snoring still effected Ms Nurovic at the time of the assault.
6. Mr Nurovic also says that six or seven years ago Ms Nurovic fell in the bathroom and injured her nose receiving bruising, pain and swelling and took two weeks sick leave. There is nothing to indicate that in the six or seven intervening years Ms Nurovic had not fully recovered from this incident.
7. In Hansen v Bolton [2017] WADC 25; (2017) 91 SR (WA) 137 [85] - [86] Herron DCJ explained the effect of a pre-existing condition as follows:

(a) compensation would not be awarded if the injury or loss would have occurred in any event due to a pre-existing condition;

(b) where it cannot be positively stated that the injury or loss would have occurred in any event but it remains a probability then the award of compensation must be reduced to take into account that probability; and

(c) where it is not possible to disentangle the consequences of a pre-existing condition and the consequence of the events the claimant is entitled to compensation for the full injury and loss if the claimant can establish that the compensable offence did contribute materially to the claimant's injury or loss.

1. If a pre-existing condition left Ms Nurovic more vulnerable to an injury then any injury sustained in the assault is compensable as a result of the principle that an offender takes the victim as they find them and that any special susceptibility that the victim has does not reduce but may increases the damages: Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158; Neall v Watson (1960) 34 ALJR 364.
2. In relation to the physical injuries sustained by Ms Nurovic, the broken nose, there is absolutely no evidence that she had a pre-existing condition that would have meant her nose would have been broken in any event. Whilst any pre-existing nasal difficulty may have left her predisposed to a broken nose, Mr Nurovic simply takes his victim as he finds her.
3. There is no evidence to justify any reduction of damages for the broken nose as a result of any pre-existing condition.
4. In relation to the psychological condition Dr Ng in diagnosing post-traumatic stress disorder with associated depressive symptoms said the assault of 27 December 2013 was the most significant contribution factor in materially precipitating the onset of that condition.
5. He said Ms Nurovic was somewhat predisposed to this condition as a result of the prior verbal and physical abuse by Mr Nurovic and issues relating to the war in the former Yugoslav, her country of origin, may have mildly predisposed her to her current difficulties.
6. Dr Ng stated that the compensable assault of 27 December 2013 contributed to about 80% to the onset of the post-traumatic stress disorder, the previous (non-compensable) abuse about 15% and issues associated with her country of origin (non-compensable) 5%.
7. Ms Nurovic has the onus of proving that the compensable offence (the assault causing bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation) contributed materially to her injury or loss. It need not be the sole cause of the injury or loss: MJN v MAJS (2013) 143 A Crim R 375; (2013) 35 SR (WA) 219 [50] - [51].
8. Clearly the compensable offence materially contributed to the onset of the post-traumatic stress disorder with associated depressive symptoms.
9. Ms Nurovic is entitled to compensation for the full injury and loss once she has established on the balance of probabilities that the compensable offence contributed materially to her injury or loss: MJN v MAJS.
10. The fact that Ms Nurovic was predisposed to the onset of that condition as a result of non-compensable causes does not require any deduction from what would otherwise be awarded. Whilst Ms Nurovic may have been predisposed to post-traumatic stress disorder there is no evidence showing that she would have suffered that condition but for the assault.
11. The wrongdoer takes the victim as he finds her.
12. There is no evidence to justify any reduction of damages for the physiological injury as a result of any pre-existing condition.

1. Dr Pham, who first saw Ms Nurovic on 14 January 2014, said that Ms Nurovic suffered from a nasal deformity with an irregularity of the nasal bone and a dorsal hump. When he saw she was in nasal pain, suffering from headaches and nasal obstruction.
2. Dr Pham said Ms Nurovic was suffering from a mild soft tissue injury with swelling, bruising and tenderness to the nose region.
3. Dr Pham said that the dorsal had an irregular bone corresponding to a nasal bone fracture with a deviated bone and a collapse of the mid-void. He noticed that the tip was bulbous and derotated and weakly supported. He also noticed that the alar rim was retracting and the septum was deviated.
4. Dr Pham performed a septorhinoplasty and a trimming of the turbinates in February 2014. When reviewed seven weeks post-operatively Ms Nurovic was observed to have excellent airways but was still suffered from swelling at the nasal tip.
5. When reviewed six months post-operatively Dr Pham noted that the septum was straight and Ms Nurovic was breathing excellently. When reviewed one year post-operatively Ms Nurovic had excellent airways and no nasal pain however she suffered from occasional right sided ear pain and very occasional nausea and vomiting with an occasional reduced sense of smell and was suffering from some discomfort from the right temporomandibular joint.
6. Mr Ng the psychiatrist in his report of 11 September 2017 diagnosed a post-traumatic stress disorder with associated depressive symptoms following the assault of 27 December 2013 which at its worst was to a moderate extent and which has improved with time.
7. Mr Ng said that for at least 6 to 12 months following the incident Ms Nurovic's capacity to enjoy her life was moderately impaired and her current capacity (September 2017) to enjoy life was mild to moderately impaired.
8. As of that date Mr Ng said Ms Nurovic was suffering from ongoing residual psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, fear, interrupted sleep, loss of confidence, difficulties making decisions and focusing, increased forgetfulness, occasional panic attacks, occasional nightmares, an overwhelming feeling of sadness, weight loss, loss of libido and had become socially withdrawn.
9. Dr Ng noted that Ms Nurovic's long-term difficulties included a reduced sense of smell and numbness to the tip of her nose. He also noted that she had undergone one operation and 10 counselling sessions with a Women's Holistic Health Centre.
10. Ms Nurovic provided a statement in support of her application, a police statement and a victim impact statement.
11. There is significant overlap between these statements, however she says that immediately after the incident she felt incredible pain in the eyelids and around her eyes and her jaw was sore and tender. She said that her whole head was sore and she could not move her jaw and she was distressed.
12. Subsequently Ms Nurovic sought reconstructive surgery which was performed and she found that surgery painful. After the surgery she was required to take medication several times daily and had difficulty sleeping and lost some 8 kg in two months.
13. She said that she had suicidal thoughts, suffered from fear and anxiety attacks, had difficulties making decisions, her sleep was interfered with in that she would wake up regularly and would only be able to sleep in blocks of two to three hours which resulted in her becoming quite fatigued.
14. She maintained that she had lost her enjoyment of life, lacked motivation to carry out activities such as cooking, walking, exercising and socialising and was fearful for her own personal safety.
15. She said that she was not able to work for some 2 ½ months after the incident when she took unpaid leave. She then returned to work on a graduated return to work programme but took considerable amounts of unpaid leave.
16. She said she had become housebound and socially withdrawn, had lost concentration and focus and the prolonged period of time she took off work and the difficulties she had studying affected her career and the surgery had left her with headaches and nasal pain.
17. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that as a result of the assault for which Mr Nurovic pleaded guilty, Ms Nurovic suffered a fracture to her nose and subsequently developed post-traumatic stress disorder with associated depressive symptoms and has the ongoing residue psychiatric symptoms which are referred to above.
18. Ms Nurovic is entitled to be compensated for her physical injuries and the pain and suffering associated with her fractured nose and the ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder.
19. Taking into account the pain and suffering and subsequent surgical intervention and the occasional reduced sense of smell as a result of the broken nose and the post-traumatic stress disorder with the associated depressive symptom resulting therein I would allow general damages of $35,000.

1. Ms Nurovic is also entitled to be compensated for the cost of Dr Ng's report of $1,716.

1. In relation to treatment expenses Ms Nurovic, claimed a total of $6,219.20 pursuant to the schedule attached to her original application.
2. I would allow the difference after Medicare and HBF reimbursements of the hospital expense of $163.60, Dr Tangarorang $33.70, Dr Pham $120.55, Dr Inwood $37.95, Dr Lee $730.35, Dr Abbott $914.20, Dr Pham $3,211.94 and Dr Li Lee $20.00.
3. I am only satisfied that the above $5,232.29 relates to the proved offence.
4. The expenses disallowed relate to expenses incurred by Ms Nuravic for other issues including a slip at a supermarket, a back strain, vertigo, an incident in a carpark, distress at financial hardship, various radiological expenses for scans of the knee, foot, ankle and leg, acupuncture. All these expenses were claimed however I am not satisfied they relate to the proven offence and accordingly I disallow them.
5. I allow treatment expenses of $5,232.29.

1. Dr Ng recommended that Ms Nurovic receive 8 to 12 sessions of individual psychotherapy at an approximate cost of $350 per session and recommended that therapy be undergone at intervals of three to four weeks which in effect means that all 12 sessions will be delivered within one year.
2. The rate recommended by the Australian Psychology Society is $246 per session and the Medicare rebate of $124.50 per session is available for only 10 of those sessions, leaving a gap of $121.50 for each of the sessions leaving a balance of $1,215. The Medicare rebate would not be available to the other two sessions making a total of $1,707.
3. The appropriate allowance for future medical expenses would be $1,707 subject to s 48 of the Act which essentially means that Ms Nurovic would not receive payment unless these expenses were actually incurred.

1. Ms Nurovic claims loss of past earning capacity on the basis that she could not work for 2 ½ months after the incident and that when she did return to work she was absent frequently on unpaid leave and then underwent a gradual return to work programme that included reduced work hours. Ms Nurovic says she took unpaid leave for the period from 14 April 2014 to 25 July 2014.
2. The reports show that in the period after the accident Ms Nurovic was able to work for some period of time and unable to work for other periods, took unpaid leave, then returned to work on a part-time basis working 17 hours per week and took further unpaid leave then returned to work on a graduated return to work programme which included reduced hours and took more unpaid leave and was certified as being fit to return to work on 25 June 2014.
3. The total loss of past income claimed is $24,419.50. This appears to have been calculated on the basis of the value of all unpaid sick leave which Ms Nurovic took between 2 January 2014 and 30 July 2014.
4. Ms Nurovic accepted through her legal representatives that she had a not insignificant amount of time off from work in the 12 weeks prior to the assault as a result of issues relating to Mr Nurovic and their acrimonious relationship which she accepts are non-compensable causes.
5. Ultimately Ms Nurovic's claim for past loss of earnings is really based on the fact that she had significantly more time off after the incident than she did prior to the incident and therefore she says she should be award compensation to reflect her loss of income.
6. An examination of Ms Nurovic's wage records show that in the 12 week period prior to the assault Ms Nurovic had taken approximately 179 hours, or 14.91 hours per week, of sick leave.
7. In the 25 weeks subsequent to the incident up until 16 June 2015, Ms Nurovic took approximately 608 hours, or 24.32 hours per week, of sick leave.
8. The assessment of past economic loss is not an exact science and consideration must be given to the large amount of time that Ms Nurovic was on unpaid sick leave prior to the incident.
9. The difference is approximately 10 hours per week. Over a 25 week period this equates to 250 hours per week of extra unpaid leave which I am satisfied was as a result of the assault at $32.43 per hour = $8,107 less 17% for tax gives a past economic loss of $6,729.
10. Although Ms Nurovic claims economic loss up to 25 July 2014 the medical notes of Dr Lee show that on the 16 June 2014 as a result of a slip at the IGA shop she was certified unfit for work.
11. Considering the amount the amount of time Ms Nurovic took off for sick leave before the assault and the issue of medical certificates certifying her unfit after the shopping centre fall I am not satisfied that any past economic loss since the 16 June 2016 has been established.
12. Ms Nurovic claims loss of future earning capacity as she says the assault caused her to lose self-confidence and ambition and reduced her prospects of advancing her career as well as effecting her ability to study. Accordingly she says the assault limited her opportunity for future employment and thereby she suffered loss of earning capacity.
13. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Nurovic has made a case for loss of future earning capacity. Whilst I accept that she was fearful of losing her job because of the time she took off work and the evidence establishes that she becomes withdrawn if clientele became aggressive or raise their voice the evidence also shows she is currently working full-time and will be able to for the foreseeable future (Dr Ng).
14. I am not satisfied that Ms Nurovic has proven her claim for future economic loss.
15. In accordance with the above reasons I award Ms Nurovic criminal injuries compensation assessed as follows:

1. In relation to s 45 of the Act I make no order limiting the amount of the award subject to the proceedings under pt 6 of the Act.
2. The appeal has been partially successful. Mr Nurovic was unrepresented and it is not appropriate that a costs order be made against the chief executive officer whose submissions as always were of great assistance. I make no order as to costs.
3. I order that:
   1. The appeal be allowed.
   2. The decision of the assessor dated 10 October 2018 is set aside.
   3. The sum of $50,384.29 is awarded to Ms Nurovic as compensation for injuries and losses in respect of the proved offence.
   4. $1,716 from the award be deducted pursuant to s 23 as an interim payment.
   5. $1,707 of the award be subject to s 48 of the Act
   6. Ms Almedina Nurovic be paid $46,961.29 less any amounts previously paid to her pursuant to the award of 10 October 2018.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.