HCJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 28;

1. On 22 August 2024, the Applicant applied for financial assistance and a recognition payment. In the application form the Applicant stated he was assaulted by an alleged offender while trying to protect his father on a date in July 2024.
2. On 12 September 2024, an Assessor dismissed the application. The Assessor found the applicant was eligible for support as a secondary victim of an act of violence. However, the Assessor was not satisfied that the available evidence supported a finding that the applicant was a primary victim of review. The Applicant sought internal review of this decision.
3. On 29 January 2025, the Senior Assessor dismissed the application for a recognition payment. The Senior Assessor found that evidence established an offence was committed against the applicant in the nature of a common assault, which, by its nature, involves violent conduct, but there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Applicant was injured as a direct result of the act of violence.

1. On 29 May 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Senior Assessor's decision. In the application for review, the Applicant stated:

I am appealing Victim Services decision that I wasn't the primary victim of an act of violence, and as such my application for a recognition payment and financial assistance was dismissed. The decision maker confirmed that I had been the victim of an assault, though denied my application citing that I hadn't suffered any injuries. My GP confirmed that I'd suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder following being assaulted.

1. With respect to his delay in lodging the application, the Applicant stated that his father, who was seriously ill, had been handling the claims and was waiting for further reviews to be completed by Victim Services before submitting his claims.
2. At the hearing on 7 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order extending the time for the Applicant to lodge the application to 29 May 2025, noting that there was no objection to such an order being made.
3. With the consent of the parties, the Tribunal made orders that evidence in this application 202500206154 and a related application 20025/00206136 be treated as evidence in the other proceeding.

1. There is no dispute that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear these proceedings. Section 51(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine an application to the Tribunal for administrative review of a decision made by the Respondent following an internal review of a decision with respect to a recognition payment.
2. The Tribunal's powers in relation to an application for administrative review are governed by s 63 of the ADR Act, which provides that in determining an application for administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision under the ADR Act, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is, having regard to the applicable law and the material before it: section 63(1) of the ADR Act.

1. The Act sets out eligibility criteria for victims of violent crime to receive different types of support and assistance. This review concerns a recognition payment. A recognition payment is a payment made in recognition of the trauma suffered by a victim of an act of violence: s 34 of the Act.
2. Section 19 of the Act defines 'act of violence' as follows:

19 Meaning of "act of violence"

(1) In this Act, act of violence means an act or series of related acts, whether committed by one or more persons -

(a) that has apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence, and

(b) that has involved violent conduct against one or more persons, and

(c) that has resulted in injury or death to one or more of those persons.

...

1. Section 20(1) of the Act provides that '[a] primary victim of an act of violence is a person who is injured, or dies, as a direct result of that act'. Section 20(2) of the Act provides that a primary victim of an act of violence extends to a person who is injured, or dies, as a direct result of: trying to prevent another person from committing that act, or trying to help or rescue another person against whom that act is being committed or has just been committed, or trying to arrest another person who is committing, or who has just committed, that act.
2. Section 18 of the Act defines injury as follows: 'injury means actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or psychological or psychiatric harm but does not include injury arising from loss or damage to property'.
3. Section 23(1) of the Act provides that a primary victim of an act of violence is eligible for the support under the scheme described in s 26 of the Act. A primary victim of an act of violence, or somebody acting on their behalf, may apply for a recognition payment in recognition of the trauma suffered: s 38 of the Act.
4. To access a recognition payment, an applicant must submit documentary evidence as required by section 39 of the Act. Section 39 provides:

39 Documentary evidence

(1) An application for victims support is to be accompanied by such documentary evidence as may be required by the approved form.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the documentary evidence to be required:

(b) for an application for financial assistance for economic loss under section 26 or 27 or for a recognition payment - is:

(i) a police report, or a report by a Government agency or any other agency that provides support services to victims of crime, sufficient to support, on the balance of probability, the applicant's claim to be a victim of an act of violence or act of modern slavery, and

(ii) a medical, dental or counselling report verifying that the applicant or child who is the primary victim concerned has actually been injured as a result of an act of violence or act of modern slavery.

1. The category of recognition payment payable depends on the nature of the act of violence. Section 35 of the Act provides for categories of recognition payment. Section 35(4) provides:

(4) A category D recognition payment is a payment given in respect of an act of violence or act of modern slavery involving any of the following -

...

(d) an assault (not resulting in grievous bodily harm).

1. Section 36(1)(e) of the Act provides for the payment of a category D recognition payment to a primary victim who suffered injury as a result of an act of violence or act of modern slavery described in section 35(4) of the Act. The Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2019 (NSW) prescribes the amounts payable under s 36 of the Act: r 14.

1. On 29 May 2025, the Applicant filed an application for review and attached the Senior Assessor's decision dated 29 January 2025.
2. On 24 July 2025, the Applicant filed:

(1) Submissions in support of the application of review; and

(2) A medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner dated 14 July 2025 ('the 2025 medical certificate').

1. On 15 August 2025, the Respondent filed a bundle of documents filed under s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) ('ADR Act'). The bundle of documents filed in accordance with section 58 of the ADR Act includes video footage of part of the incident in which the Applicant states he was assaulted.
2. On 16 October 2025, the Applicant filed the following documents and submissions:

(1) Witness statement made by the Applicant to the police on 18 August 2024.

(2) Witness statement made by the Applicant's father to the police on 6 August 2024.

(3) Written submissions in support of the application for review.

1. On 5 November 2025, the Respondent filed submissions.
2. The Respondent and the Applicant made oral submissions at the hearing on 7 November 2025. The Applicant was self-represented and appeared by AVL The Respondent did not seek to cross-examine the Applicant.

1. The evidence before the Tribunal about the alleged act of violence includes the COPS Event report E98233674, the police witness statement of the Applicant dated 18 September 2024, and the police witness statement of his father dated 6 August 2024.
2. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was a victim of an act of violence in the nature of an assault. Where the parties differ in this case is with respect to the question of whether the evidence before the Tribunal is sufficient to verify that the Applicant has actually been injured as a result of the act of violence.
3. The issue for determination is whether the documentary evidence is sufficient to verify that the Applicant was injured as a direct result of an act of violence, as required by s 39(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.

1. The Respondent's position is that for the Applicant to access support in the form of a recognition payment, the Applicant must meet the requirements for documentary evidence set out in s 39(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Respondent submits that the requirement to provide documentary evidence of injury is a pre-condition for approval of a recognition payment: DEP v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2018] NSWCATAD 99 at [6].
2. The Respondent submits that while the Senior Assessor was satisfied on the available evidence that an offence was committed against the applicant in the nature of common assault, there was no evidence of injury to the Applicant. The Respondent notes that a certificate of injury dated 22 July 2024 stated the Applicant witnessed an assault on his father on a date on July 2024 and made a provisional diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the incident.
3. The Applicant's position is that he is entitled to a recognition payment. In oral and written submissions, the Applicant submitted that the Senior Assessor acknowledged that the available evidence established that he was subject to an act of violence for the purpose of s 19(1)(a) and s 19(1)(b) of the Act but found the Applicant had provided no evidence of injury. The Applicant submitted he had suffered physical and psychological injury. Before the Tribunal, the Applicant relied on a medical certificate dated 14 July 2025 issued by a registered medical practitioner to verify that he was injured, in the nature of psychological injury, as a result of the act of violence.
4. To be eligible for a recognition payment, an applicant must provide a medical, dental or counselling report verifying that the applicant who is the primary victim has actually been injured as a result of the act of violence. In s 39(2)(b)(ii) the words 'as a result of an act of violence' refer to the 'act of violence' upon which the claim for a recognition payment is based.
5. Having considered all the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant was the primary victim of an act of violence, in the nature of assault, and that he suffered an injury as a result. The Tribunal is satisfied that the 2025 medical certificate is sufficient to verify that the applicant has suffered injury in the nature of psychological harm as a result of the act of violence as required by section 39(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In the 2025 medical certificate, which is dated 14 July 2025, a General Practitioner reports that the Applicant attended the medical practice with '?PTSD. His symptoms are insomnia, flashbacks and nightmares from an assault on himself and of witnessing his father being assaulted'. The Tribunal notes that the written submissions of the Respondent do not refer to the 2025 medical certificate.
6. On the evidence before it, Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has established on the balance of probabilities that he was the primary victim of an act of violence that occurred in NSW for the purposes of s 19 and s 20 of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant sustained an injury, in the nature of psychological harm, as a direct result of the act of violence and that a medical report verifies that the Applicant was actually injured as a result of the act of violence. As the Tribunal is satisfied that documentary evidence requirements in s 39(2)(b) of the Act are met, the Applicant is entitled to a recognition payment.
7. Section 35(4)(d) of the Act provides that a Category D recognition payment is available in respect of an act of violence involving an assault (not resulting in grievous bodily harm). During the hearing, the solicitor for the Respondent noted that, if the Tribunal were to determine that the medical evidence was sufficient to be satisfied that the Applicant was a primary victim of an act of violence and entitled to recover a recognition payment, the Applicant would be entitled to a Category D recognition payment. The Tribunal accepts this submission.
8. Having regard to its findings of fact, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is eligible for a Category D recognition payment in the sum of $1,500 pursuant to s 35(4)(d) and s 36(1)(e) of the Act.
9. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that would support a conclusion that the recognition payment for which the Tribunal has found the Applicant is eligible should be reduced or withheld pursuant to s 44 of the Act.

(1) The decision of the Respondent of 29 January 2025 is set aside.

(2) The Tribunal substitutes a decision that the Applicant is eligible for Category D recognition payment in the sum of $1,500.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.