GYZ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 109 | Case summary

The first application -- proceeding 2025/00150293

GYZ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 109 | Case summary | Zoe

[8]

On 10 October 2024, the Applicant lodged an application for victim support in respect of sexual assaults allegedly perpetrated by an offender (hereafter Ms B) between 1 April 2023 and I June 2023 when the Applicant was a convicted inmate. The Applicant states: "I was physically, sexually, and psychologically abused over a period of time by this person."
In the application form, the Applicant identifies the offender by name and reports that the incidents occurred in a named correctional centre. The Applicant reported the incidents to the police on 25 June 2024: COPS Event E80771805. This report states that the Applicant was sexually assaulted by two persons of interest in custody involving hand/fist insertion and punching. The Applicant also disclosed the incidents to a Victims Services Counsellor ('Ms G'). The Applicant submitted a Certificate of Injury ('COI') form dated 2 October 2024 completed by Ms G.
On 17 January 2025, the Assessor dismissed the application because the Applicant had not provided medical evidence to verify injury as a result of the act of violence. The Assessor identifies two relevant NSW police records: COPS Event numbers 80771805 and 301680397. The Assessor incorrectly records that in police event number 301680397 the Applicant reported that she was a victim of a sexual assault at the Correctional Centre. However, the report made in July 2023 identifies the Applicant as the person of interest ('POI') in relation to the sexual assault, not the victim.
On 21 March 2025, a Senior Assessor was satisfied that the Applicant was the primary victim of an act of violence, apparently on the basis that the Applicant reported the act of violence to the police in 2023. The Senior Assessor dismissed the application on the basis that, pursuant to s 25(4) of the Act, the Applicant was not eligible to receive victims support because she was a convicted inmate at the time of the act of violence. The Senior Assessor found that there were no special circumstances under sections 25(5) or 25(6) of the Act that justified an exception being made to the ineligibility of convicted inmates. The Senior Assessor found:

[55]

The term serious and permanent injury is not defined in the Act. The language of 'seriously and permanently injured' is different from the language of 'serious bodily injury.' The language of serious bodily injury is found in section 35 of the Act which provides that a sexual assault meets the requisite threshold for a Category B recognition payment if it results in serious bodily injury, or involved an offensive weapon or was carried out by 2 or more persons or involved violence that is one of a series of related acts.
The Tribunal considers that the language of 'seriously and permanently injured' imports a higher threshold than the language of 'serious bodily injury' because it requires that the Tribunal be satisfied that injury suffered by the Applicant as a result of the act of violence be both serious and permanent, that is, that the injury is lasting, and not temporary in nature. While an act of violence does not need to be the sole cause, the statutory language requires that the serious and permanent injury be 'the result of' the act of violence, suggesting a causal relationship between the act of violence and the injury.
There has been limited consideration of the operation of section 25(5) of the Act. Both parties have referred to EMI v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2021] NSW CATAD 117. In EMI SM Riordan was not satisfied that the medical evidence about the psychological injury suffered by EMI as a result of a sexual assault that occurred when EMI was a convicted inmate was sufficient to establish that the injury was both serious and permanent, noting that there was no current diagnosis and prognosis for recovery.
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the available medical evidence does not establish that the Applicant has suffered a serious and permanent injury as a result of the act of violence. There are extensive Justic Health records before the Tribunal. These records indicate that the Applicant has suffered significant trauma in her life, has been diagnosed with mental health conditions, and has a history of suicidal ideation and mental health admissions prior to being incarcerated in November 2022. While in custody she has been prescribed anti-anxiety medication, anti-depressants, and medication for PTSD. It is not in dispute that the Applicant has suffered psychological harm as a result of the traumatic experiences that occurred before the act of violence that is the subject of this application.
The issue the Tribunal must consider is whether it is satisfied, on the available evidence, that the Applicant has been seriously and permanently injured as a result of the act of violence by Ms A.
The Tribunal has reviewed the COI dated 2 October 2024. This COI was prepared by a counsellor to whom the Applicant disclosed the act of violence in June 2024, a year after the act of violence occurred. The COI records that the Applicant had the following presenting symptoms: 'fearful, withdrawn, anxious, night terrors, blurred vision and dots, sore and tender breasts (further examinations reveal her right breast has flipped over and she has scarring).' The counsellor, Ms G, provides the following provisional diagnosis: 'trauma, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, hypertension, and night terrors'. In response to a question about known or disclosed pre-existing conditions that have been aggravated by this incident, the COI records: 'Depression and anxiety. Medication needed after the abuse for pre-existing depression and anxiety. The client is also medicated for panic attacks hypertension and night terrors.'
The COI does not provide any insight into the long-term prognosis for the Applicant or address the potential impact of other stressors and traumas on her symptoms. The symptoms identified in the COI relied on in the first application for a recognition payment are identical to the symptoms identified in a COI relied on in the second application for a recognition payment. The COI does not distinguish between the impact of the alleged act of violence by Ms A and the alleged act of violence by Ms B. The COI does not particularise the location or cause of the scarring. The COI does not refer to self-harm by the Applicant and, while there is a reference to scarring in COI, it does not detail the cause of the scarring.
A letter from the same counsellor, dated 23 July 2025, confirms Ms G has been working with the Applicant since 7 February 2024 to 30 July 2025. In the letter, which draws no distinction between the impact of the alleged act of violence by Ms A and the impact of the alleged act of violence by Ms B, Ms G writes:

[57]

As noted by the Applicant, the Senior Assessor was satisfied, based on the COI, that the medical evidence provided by the Applicant was sufficient to verify that she has experienced injury in the form of psychological or psychiatric harm as a result of the alleged act of violence.
The question the Tribunal must consider is whether the evidence before it is sufficient to support a finding that the injury caused as a result of the act of violence is serious and 'permanent' in the sense that it is not temporary, and will have an ongoing impact on the Applicant in the foreseeable future. The COI and the letter from the counsellor ('the counsellor's reports') do not address the ongoing impact of psychological injury inflicted by Ms A on the Applicant or explain why the impact of the act of violence by Ms A is serious and permanent, in the sense that it will have an ongoing impact on the Applicant in the foreseeable future. The counsellor's letter states the Applicant 'would use self-harm as a way to cope with her overwhelming symptoms' but does not provide detailed particulars about the Applicant's current symptoms or ongoing treatment plans. The counsellor's reports do not distinguish between the impact of the act of violence by Ms A and the impact of the act of violence by Ms B. Nor do the counsellor's reports engage with the relationship between the Applicant's reported symptoms and her pre-existing conditions of depression and anxiety as well as other traumatic experiences, both in custody and predating her entry into custody in November 2022.
The Justice Health records indicate that the Applicant has a history of significant trauma and mental health issues that predates her incarceration in November 2022. The Justice Health records refer to earlier traumatic events (child abuse, domestic violence, adult sexual assault), mental health admissions, and a distressing history of suicidal ideation in the context of traumatic experiences (for example, Justice Health records from 20 October 2023, refer to a suicide attempt after a sexual assault that occurred in 2012). However, the contemporaneous Justice Health records do not directly refer to the act of violence perpetrated by Ms A or any injuries, physical or psychological, inflicted by Ms A. The Tribunal has considered a report that the Applicant engaged with a Risk Intervention team on 26 March 2023 to manage suicidal ideation, but the related Justice Health records do not contain any reference to the act of violence by Ms A and instead record that the Applicant's attendance at a recent course has 'brought up old feelings of trauma' that the Applicant is not willing to discuss. Other contemporaneous Justice Health records refer to a 'reported sexual assault by a CSNW staff': Justice Health Record, p 125 of the Applicant's Bundle'.
Overall, the extensive medical records indicate that the Applicant has a complex history of trauma, including child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence, and a history of suicidal ideation and significant mental health issues, which predate her entry into custody. The medical records indicate that being in prison has exacerbated the Applicant's pre-existing mental health issues and refer to assaults and other stressors and that she requires medication for mental health conditions. While the Tribunal has considered the references to assaults in Justice Health records identified in the Applicant's submissions, the Tribunal is not satisfied these refer to the act of violence by Ms A. For example, in the report dated 4 April 2025, the reference to the sexual assault shortly after coming into custody is unclear. As noted above, there are references in the Justice Health records to an alleged sexual assault by a corrective service officer. The impression of the author of the report on 4 April 2023 was "Borderline and PTSD pathology exacerbated by being in prison - then further exacerbated by segregation and the trauma referred to above'.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Justice Health records indicate that the Applicant has experienced suicidal ideation and self-harmed while in prison. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has scarring on her arms from acts of self-harm and that she may also have other scars on her body. The Tribunal notes that in oral evidence, the Applicant stated she had scars on her face as well as self-inflicted scars on her arms. In her statutory declaration, she also refers to scars on her breasts that were inflicted by Ms A. With respect to the claim that the Applicant has scars as a result of being cut or otherwise harmed by Ms A, contemporaneous Justice Health records do not verify that the Applicant has scarring on her body or her face as a result of the actions of Ms A or identify any wounds consistent with this description. While the COI and the letter from Ms G refers to the scarring, the counsellor's reports do not particularise how the scarring occurred. Neither the COI or the letter from Ms G distinguish between the impact of the alleged act of violence by Ms A and the impact of the alleged act of violence by Ms B or the impact of other traumatic events on the Applicant's mental health and suicidal ideation.
The contemporaneous Justice Health records disclose that the Applicant has significant mental health issues and a history of trauma, but they do not refer to an act of violence by Ms A or support a finding that, as a result of an act of violence by Ms A, the Applicant has suffered an injury that is both serious and permanent. While the Tribunal has also considered the counsellor's reports, the COI makes no reference to acts of self-harm and, having regard to the issues identified in paragraph [56] of this decision, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the COI provides sufficient particulars to support a finding that, as a result of the act of violence by Ms A, the Applicant suffered a serious and permanent injury.
Furthermore, while the counsellor's letter states that the Applicant would self-harm to cope with her overwhelming symptoms, the Tribunal is concerned that this letter was written in 2025, two years after the claimed act of violence and does not engage with the impact of earlier and supervening traumas and stressors. The letter does not distinguish between the impact of the act of violence by Ms A and the impact of the act of violence by Ms B or provide sufficient particulars to support findings that the injury as a result of the act of violence by Ms A is serious and permanent. Accordingly, while the Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant has significant mental health issues and has engaged in acts of self-harm while in prison, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the available medical evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant has suffered a serious and permanent injury as a result of the act of violence by Ms A.
Having considered the totality of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that, as a result of the act of violence by Ms A, the Applicant has suffered a serious and permanent psychological injury. In the Tribunal's view, when the medical evidence is considered in the context of the Applicant's history of trauma, the other assaults and stressors referred to in the Justice Health records, and her history of mental health issues, the medical evidence is not sufficient for the Tribunal to reach the requisite state of satisfaction that the Applicant has any permanent and serious injury as a result of the act of violence by Ms A. The Tribunal is not satisfied to the requisite standard that any scarring on the Applicant's face or body is a direct or indirect result of the act of violence by Ms A. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the medical evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that acts of self-harm the Applicant engaged in while in custody were a result of the act of violence by Ms A or that the act of violence by Ms A has resulted in a serious and permanent injury to the Applicant.
For completeness, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has suffered a serious and permanent physical injury as a result of the act of violence by Ms A. With respect to the statement in the COI that the Applicant's breasts are 'sore and tender' and the right breast (implant) has 'flipped over,' the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submissions that these observations were made a year after the act of violence, the counsellor is not qualified to make a diagnosis in relation to any injury to the Applicant's breast and that the counsellor provided the same information in the COI in relation to the alleged act of violence by Ms A and the alleged act of violence by Ms B. While the ultrasound results dated 16 May 2024 records that the Applicant has folding of a breast implant and 'disruption cannot be excluded' as a cause, this report does not link the disruption to the act of violence perpetrated by Ms A and, given the passage of time between the report and the act of violence, such a link cannot be inferred.
The Applicant's case is not assisted by medical records related to her presentations for shoulder pain: a hospital discharge summary dated 12 February 2023 records that there is 'no history of trauma' and that the examining doctor believes she has trapezius myalgia. A subsequent report dated 9 May 2023 records that the Applicant reported her shoulder pain was ongoing and likely caused by her participation in a particular sport. A recommendation for further investigations of her shoulder pain in June 2023 does not link her shoulder pain to an act of violence or provide any basis upon which to conclude the Applicant's shoulder or breast was seriously and permanently injured as a result of the act of violence by Ms A.
Having considered the available medical evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the act of violence caused a serious and permanent physical injury of any type.
Looking forward, the Tribunal finds that the medical evidence is insufficient to establish that, as a result of the act of violence by Ms A, the Applicant has suffered an injury, either physical or psychological, that is both serious and permanent, in the sense that it is lasting, and will continue have an ongoing impact on the Applicant.
In summary, the Tribunal finds that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Applicant was seriously and permanently injured as a direct result of the act of violence by Ms A. Because the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant has been seriously and permanently injured as a result of the relevant act of violence, the Tribunal does not accept that section 25(6) of the Act is enlivened in this case. However, this is not the end of the matter because it is clear from the terms of section 25(6) and section 25(5) of the Act that there may be other special circumstances that justify an exception to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates.

[59]

For the reasons given above, the Tribunal has found that the evidence does not support a finding that the Applicant has been seriously and permanently injured as a result of the act of violence. The Tribunal has considered whether there are other special circumstances that justify an exception to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates.
The Applicant submits that the offending was particularly serious as it involved repeated assaults over a period of time with a weapon, and in a context where the Applicant was required to share a cell with the offender and did not seek assistance because she was worried that if she sought help her family might be harmed. The Applicant submits that the Act is beneficial legislation and that people in custody have a right to feel safe and live their lives free from violence. The Applicant submits that people in custody are at higher risk of violence because of the institutional setting in which they are required to live, and that the alleged offender took advantage of these circumstances. The Applicant submits that serious sexual assaults are out of the ordinary and that awarding her a Category B recognition payment would help acknowledge that violence against people in custody is not acceptable.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's submission that the agreed facts are objectively more serious that the circumstances in EMI v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2021] NSW CATAD 117, where the Tribunal found there were no special circumstances in a case involving the sexual assault of a convicted inmate in their cell. The Tribunal acknowledges that the act of violence in this matter involves multiple sexual assaults over a four-month period involving an offensive weapon and the serious nature of this offending. The Tribunal notes that, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the act of violence resulted in an injury that was both serious and permanent.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the nature and impact of the act of violence or the circumstances in which it occurred constitute special circumstances for the purpose of section 25(5) of the Act. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that what constitutes special circumstances must be understood within the context of the Act. While the Act is beneficial legislation, section 25(4) of the Act is intended to exclude convicted inmates who are the victims of violent crime in custody from the benefit of victims support unless there are special circumstances that justify an exception to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates. In this context, the fact that the Applicant would, if she were not a convicted inmate at the time of the act of violence, be entitled to a Category B recognition payment does not justify an exception being made to general ineligibility of convicted inmates to receive victims support. This is because section 25(4) is plainly intended to apply - absent special circumstances - to a victim of an act of violence who, but for their status as a convicted inmate at the time of the act of violence, would otherwise be entitled to a Category B recognition payment.
While sexual assault is an extremely serious criminal offence, the effect of section 25(4) of the Act is that convicted inmates who are victims of acts of violence and modern slavery in custody that involve related acts of sexual assaults, sexual assault causing seriously bodily injury, involving a offensive weapon, or a sexual assault by 2 or more persons are all ineligible for Category B recognition payments unless special circumstances exist that justify an exception to general ineligibility of convicted inmates. Section 25(4) applies broadly, irrespective of what category of recognition payment is sought. Having regard to the statutory context, the Tribunal finds that the fact that an act of violence would attract a category B recognition payment does not, in the absence of evidence that the victim was seriously and permanently injured as a result of the act of violence or other special circumstances, justify an exception being made to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates.
The Tribunal does not accept, having considered the circumstances of this case, that the fact the Applicant shared a cell with Ms A constitutes special circumstances. An argument may arise that special circumstances exist where the act of violence was committed by a person in a position of authority or where an applicant reported the act of violence to the relevant authorities, and reasonable steps were not taken by the relevant authorities to protect that applicant from further acts of violence, however this is not such a case. While the Tribunal has considered the information provided by the Applicant in her statutory declaration, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant was required to continue sharing the cell with Ms A in circumstances where the acts of violence by Ms A had been reported to relevant authorities.
The Applicant submits that the award of a recognition payment would send a message that violence against people in custody is unacceptable. While the Act does not extinguish the rights such persons have to claim victims support, it expressly provides that - unless special circumstances exist - the general position is that convicted inmates are ineligible for victims support as victims of acts of violence in custody. Criticisms might be made of the impact of section 25(4) of the Act on the rights of people in custody to access victims support when they are victims of acts of violence or, more generally, on their rights as victims of crime compared to the rights of victims of crime within the general community. However, the Tribunal must consider the question of what constitutes special circumstances within the statutory context of a legislative scheme which provides convicted inmates who are victims of acts of violence are generally ineligible for victims support unless special circumstances exist.
Having regard to all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the circumstances of the Applicant in this case amount to special circumstances that justify an exception to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates.

[62]

(1) A SARO report dated 25 June 2024 reference 20240619012098 in which the Applicant reports that she was sexually assaulted by Ms A and Ms B while in custody and that the sexual assaults consisted of hand/fist insertion and punching: Applicant's bundle, pp 1-7.

(2) NSW police reports comprising of:

(a) NSW Police Event report (E 80771805) dated 25 June 2024 and 25 July 2024. In the report dated 25 June 2024 the Applicant reports she was sexually assaulted by two inmates and provides a narrative of the assaults by between January and April 2023 and which are the subject of the first application for victim support. In the report dated 25 July 2024, the Applicant provides a narrative of the assaults by her cellmate, which are the subject of the first application for victim support. Applicant's bundle, pp8-10.

(b) NSW Police report 25 July 2024 (E30160397) in which the Applicant reports that she was sexually assaulted while incarcerated at a correctional centre by Ms B, who was also an inmate. The abuse is described as sexual touching, forced oral intercourse, and a physical assault with a weapon, being a knife which was held to the applicant's genitals. The NSW Police COPS Event E301680397 also contains a report made on 4 July 2023 which identifies the Applicant as a person of interest in relation to a report of sexual assault: Applicant's bundle, pp 11-12.

(3) In a statutory declaration dated 25 July 2025, the Applicant describes the act of violence as follows:

Offender B and I were initially friends, but over time, [Ms B] ended up sexually assaulting me. On or about mid-May 2023, I was sitting on the couch in the shared lounge room with [Ms B]

On or about mid-May 2023, I was sitting on couch in the shared room with [Ms B] and fell asleep. When I woke up, [Ms B was still sitting next to me. My pants were down to my knees. When I stop up to walk, I had pain in my buttocks and difficulty walking. I was bleeding from my buttocks.

Ms B sexually assaulted me by holding a shiv to my face and vagina and forcing her fingers etc into my vagina.

[Ms B] cut me with the shiv above my waistline, under my left eye, and on my top lip. I am willing to provide the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal with photos of these scars. It is awful for me to live with the scars because they remind me of the violence.

[73]

In cross examination the Respondent put to the Applicant that at paragraph 5 of her statutory declaration she provided details of an assault perpetrated by Ms B in mid-May. The Respondent put to the Applicant that a police report dated 4 July 2023 describes a similar assault but identifies the Applicant as the offender. In reply, the Applicant stated the whole situation is complicated. She gave evidence that she told someone she thought was her friend about the assault and then she was no longer friends with the person and the story was spread around. The Applicant's evidence was the police report was 'the consequence of the girls getting me back.' The Applicant's evidence was that initially she wasn't going to report the assault by Ms B to the police (she said she knew she should have straight away, but she didn't) and 'the girls made it seem like it was me and turned the story around and got me kicked out the jail'.
In cross examination the Respondent put to the Applicant that the police report from July 2023 stated that the Applicant was the alleged perpetrator in other matters. In reply, the Applicant questioned whether the other matters referred to matters involving Ms A and Ms B. The Respondent noted that the police report stated that the police were made aware she had sexually touched another inmate without their consent. The Applicant then stated two inmates were Ms A and Ms B. The Applicant stated that what she was told from 'other girls' and 'gossip' was that Ms A and Ms B 'stuck together' and made a report against her together.
In cross examination, the Respondent referred the Applicant to paragraph 6-7 of her statutory declaration and asked whether that was the act of violence that was described in her report to NSW police. In reply, the Applicant gave evidence she had cuts from Ms B and Ms A. In response to a question about whether the incident she described in the statutory declaration was the same as the one she reported in the SARO, the Applicant said she thought so. She added she couldn't explain everything in the SARO because the assaults were happening for a while. Her evidence was she was not too sure - she thought the answer was yes.

[78]

The Applicant's oral evidence that Ms A and Ms B made false allegations against her does not overcome the Tribunal's reservations about the reliability of the Applicant's reports about the acts of violence allegedly perpetrated by Ms B. While the Tribunal has considered the Applicant's evidence that allegations were made against her by Ms A and Ms B, the Applicant has not previously claimed that the two offenders were in communication with each other or that they conspired together to make a complaint about the Applicant.
It is for the Applicant to make her case. While it is possible the Applicant's account may be true, to reach the requisite state of satisfaction that, on the balance of probabilities, the act of violence did occur, the Tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of the existence of that fact: Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246 at [44]- [55]. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied to the requisite standard that, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant was a primary victim of an act of violence by Ms B.
Furthermore, even if the Tribunal were to accept that the Applicant was a victim of an act of violence by Ms B as claimed, the Applicant's claim could not succeed because the evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that there are special circumstances that justify an exception to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates.
Firstly, the available evidence does not establish that the Applicant has been seriously and permanently injured as a result of the claimed act of violence. If it were accepted the Applicant is the victim of an act of violence, the COI and letter from the counsellor does not address the impact of the act of violence of Ms B as distinct from the impact of the act of violence by Ms A or supervening and earlier traumatic experiences. As noted above, the Justice Health records indicate the Applicant has a traumatic history of domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault before she was incarcerated. While in custody, the Justice Health records refer to a report made by the Applicant that she was sexually assaulted by a corrective services officer as well as other stressors.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has self-harmed in custody and that she has psychological injuries as a result of her traumatic experiences. However, the counsellor's reports do not provide any insight into the ongoing impacts of the alleged act of violence by Ms B or engage with the impacts of the act of violence by Ms B distinct from the act of violence by Ms A or other traumatic events and stressors. In the Tribunal's view, when the medical evidence is considered in the context of the Applicant's history of trauma, the other assaults and stressors referred to in the Justice Health records, and her history of mental health issues, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Applicant has any permanent and serious psychological injury as a result of the claimed act of violence by Ms B.
While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant has scarring on her face and body, the contemporaneous Justice Health records do not attribute any scarring to cuts inflicted by Ms B or link acts of self-harm to the alleged act of violence by Ms B. While the COI refers to scarring, the report made by the Applicant to the police in July 2024 does not refer to being cut by Ms B (this claim was made in the Applicant's statutory declaration and in oral evidence) or explain the impact of the alleged acts of violence by Ms B as opposed to Ms A. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any scarring on the Applicant's face or body is a result of an act of violence perpetrated by Ms B. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any scarring the Applicant has a result of acts of self-harm is linked to, or the result of, the alleged act of violence by Ms B.
For completeness, the evidence does not support a finding that there was any permanent physical injury as a result of the alleged act of violence by Ms B. The COI provided in relation to the first application refers to the Applicant being punched in the breasts and cut with a knife, whereas the COI provided in relation to the second application states the Applicant 'was threatened with violence while she was abused sexually and physically.' As noted above, both COIs refer, without further particularisation, to scarring and a 'flipped breast.' However, neither the July 2024 police report nor the July 2025 statutory declaration refer to the Applicant's breast being injured as a result of the claimed assault by Ms B and the Applicant did not rely on the ultrasound dated 16 March 2024 in relation to the second application. The evidence does not support a finding of serious and permanent physical injury as a result of the alleged act of violence by Ms B.
Secondly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that other special circumstances exist to justify an exception being made to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates. The Tribunal notes that while the alleged offender in the second application was not a cellmate of the Applicant, the alleged facts concern related acts of sexual assault involving an offensive weapon in a correctional centre. Having regard to the Tribunal's reasons at 69-73 of this decision, while the Tribunal accepts that the alleged facts in the second application are objectively more serious than EMI, the Tribunal does not accept that the nature of the alleged act of violence amounts to other special circumstances that justify an exception to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates.
With respect to proceeding 2025/00150300, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is a primary victim of an act of violence for the purpose of section 19 of the Act. The Tribunal finds that, even if it were accepted that the Applicant was a primary victim of an act of violence by Ms B, the Applicant would be ineligible for a recognition payment because of section 25(4) of the Act. This is because the evidence before the Tribunal does not establish that the Applicant has been seriously and permanently injured as a result of the alleged act of violence by Ms B or that there are other special circumstances that justify an exception to the general ineligibility of convicted inmates.

GYZ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 109;

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (81 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (6)

Cases Cited (2)