HDA v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 60;

1. On 29 May 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for administrative review of the Respondent's decision of 8 April 2025. In the application for review, the Applicant stated:

I'm appealing the Victims Services decision that the two assaults in which I was victim occurred within the same sequence of events. I appealed to Victims Services decision that two assaults in which I was the victim occurred within the same sequence of events. I appealed to Victim Services arguing that there was a distinct break that occurred between the two assaults, and as such couldn't be considered to be in the same sequence of events. I'm severely disabled, so it took time for me to get a safe distance away from the person who had originally assaulted me, ending this incident. As I went to notify security, I was assaulted by a second person. The offenders were charged separately by Police, which also confirms that there these were two separate incidents.

1. With respect to his delay in lodging the application, the Applicant stated he had been seriously ill and was waiting for further reviews to be completed by Victim Services before submitting his claims.
2. On 1 August 2025, the Tribunal made an order extending the time to lodge the application to 29 May 2025. The Tribunal made orders for the parties to file and serve evidence and submissions by specified dates and listed the matter for hearing on 7 November 2025. The applicant was given leave to appear by AVL.
3. On 15 August 2025, the Respondent filed a bundle of documents filed under s 58 of the ADR Act.
4. On 27 August 2025, the Respondent filed a copy of the relevant police report event E 98233674 made on 4 July 2024.
5. On 23 September 2025, the Applicant filed a bundle of documents and submissions which relevantly includes:

(1) Police statement by the Applicant dated 6 August 2024.

(2) Police statement by the Applicant's son dated 18 August 2024.

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

1. The bundle contained other documents some of which were previously provided to Victims Services, and which are unnecessary to list to here.
2. On 4 November 2025, the Respondent filed submissions.
3. At the hearing on 7 November 2025, the Tribunal made an order extending the time for the Respondent to file submissions in compliance with direction no. 6 of the orders. With the consent of the parties, the Tribunal made orders that evidence in this application 2025/00206154 and a related application 2025/00206136 be treated as evidence in the other proceeding.
4. Because of the non-compliance with the timetable for filing of submissions by the Respondent, the Applicant sought until 10 January 2026 to make post-hearing submissions and noted her required this period of due to poor health. Noting there was no objection from the Respondent, the Tribunal made orders for the Applicant to file post-hearing submissions by 10 January 2026. The Applicant did not file further submissions.
5. On 7 November 2025, the Applicant and Respondent attended the hearing and made oral submissions. The Applicant was self-represented and appeared by AVL. The Tribunal has considered all the material before it, including the material filed in the related proceedings 2025/00206136.

1. There is no dispute that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear these proceedings as far as they relate to a decision in respect of a recognition payment. 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 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) ('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.

...

...

(4) Except as provided by subsections (5) and (6), a series of related acts is two or more acts that are related because -

(a) they were committed against the same person, and

(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal or the Commissioner -

(i) they were committed at approximately the same time, or

(ii) they were committed over a period of time by the same person or group of persons, or

(iii) they were, for any other reason, related to each other.

(5) An act is not related to another act if, in the opinion of the Tribunal or the Commissioner, having regard to the particular circumstances of those acts, they ought not to be treated as related acts.

(6) An act is not related to any earlier act in respect of which support is given under this Act if it occurs after the support is given.

(7) For the purposes of this Act, a series of related acts, whether committed by one or more persons, constitutes a single act of violence.

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'.
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 VRS Act provides for the following categories of recognition payment:

35 Categories of recognition payment

...

(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 of the VRS Act provides for the payment of recognition payments:

36 Recognition payments

(1) Recognition payments are payable as follows:

(a) a category A recognition payment of an amount prescribed by the regulations is payable -

...

(e) a category D recognition payment of an amount prescribed by the regulations is payable to a primary victim who suffered injury as a result of an act of violence described in section 35 (4).

(2) Only one recognition payment is payable to a single victim in respect of a series of related acts of violence against the victim.

(Emphasis added)

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. It is not in dispute that the Applicant is a primary victim of an act of violence under section 19 and 20 of the Act. The Applicant has been approved a category D recognition payment for an act of violence in the nature of assault that occurred on 4 July 2024.

1. The Applicant submits that he was the victim of two separate acts of violence by two separate offenders (Ms A and Mr A) on 4 July 2024. The Applicant submits he is eligible for a second Category D recognition payment in respect of his second application for victim support. The Applicant submits that the assaults by Mr A and Ms A are not related acts for the purpose of s 19(4) of the Act.
2. In his police statement, the Applicant reports being assaulted by Ms A and, a short time later, being hit in the back of the head by Mr A a: see [8]-[11] and [14] of the Applicant's police statement dated 6 August 2024. According to the police statement, the assaults occurred on the same date at the same venue with the second assault occurring a short time after the first assault. In a police statement made by the Applicant's son, the Applicant's son reports witnessing the assault by Ms A and against the Applicant (at [8]-[10]) and the assault against the Applicant by Mr A (at [12]).
3. With respect to injury, the Applicant relies on the same COI dated 22 July 2024 in respect of the assault by Mr A and the assault by Ms A. In submissions to the Tribunal, the Applicant states that he experienced a 'head injury' as a result of the assault by Ms A. He did not seek medical attention on the date of the injury, as he did not want his family to find out as his health is fragile and he feared he would be unable to attend further sporting matches. By the time he sought medical attention, the bruising caused by the assault by Ms A had resolved.

1. The Respondent's position is that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the Respondent on 8 April 2025.
2. The Respondent's position is that the Applicant was the victim of a single act of violence in the nature of assault for which he was approved a Category D recognition payment. The Respondent acknowledges that in the Applicant's police statement he states he was initially assaulted by Ms A before being assaulted by Mr A. The Respondent notes that while Police and JusticeLink reports indicate that while Ms A and Mr A were charged with assault related offences, only Mr A was convicted of assaulting the applicant.
3. The Respondent notes the Applicant provided the same COI in support of both applications for victims support. The Respondent submits that in respect of the alleged act of violence by Ms A, the requisite elements of s19 are not made out and the events described form a single act of violence, committed by two people, in accordance with s 19(1) of the Act. The Respondent submits that if the Tribunal were to consider the actions of Ms A and Mr A as separate acts of violence and there was evidence the Applicant was injured as a result of the assault by Ms A, the acts should be treated as a 'series of related acts' constituting a single act of violence.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts, on the balance of probabilities, that on 4 July 2024 the Applicant was the victim of an assault by Ms A and an assault by Mr A.
2. Section 19(1) of the Act states 'an act of violence means an act or a series of related acts, whether committed by one or more persons' that meets the requirements set out in s19(1)(a), (b) and (c). Section 19 (4) of the Act provides that, except as provided by s 19(5) and (6), a series of related acts is two or more acts that are related because -

(a) they were committed against the same person, and

(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal or the Commissioner -

(i) they were committed at approximately the same time, or

(ii) they were committed over a period of time by the same person or group of persons, or

(iii) they were, for any other reason, related to each other.

1. The definition of 'series of related acts' in s 19 of the Act operates 'to treat conduct which would amount to separate offences as a single act of violence for the purposes of the statute' for the purposes of the recognition payments which may be made under the Act: DRJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 242 at [54]; see also section 36(2) of the Act.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the two acts, namely the assaults against the Applicant by Ms A and Mr A, are 'a series of related acts' for the purpose of s 19(4)(a) and (b) of the Act. The Tribunal has accepted that the Applicant was subject to two assaults: an assault by Ms A and an assault by Mr A. These two acts are related because the acts occurred against the same person on the same date and at the same venue with one assault occurring shortly after the other assault in circumstances where the evidence indicates that Ms A and Mr A were known to each other and that the assault by Mr A occurred very shortly, and in reaction to, the incident in which the Applicant was assaulted by Ms A: section 19(4)(b) of the Act.
3. As noted by the Respondent, the Tribunal has previously found that the acts of two offenders were 'related acts' in GCL v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2024] NSWCATAD 200 ('GCL'). While GCL involved attempts by two perpetrators to sexually assault or engage in sexual touching or a sexual act in the context of physical assaults, in GCL the Tribunal found the acts of the two perpetrators occurred at the same address on the same day and were, 'having regard to the nature of what actually transpired', related to each 'for any other reason' for the purpose of s 19(4)(b): GCL at [91]; see also [87]-[91].
4. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submissions that s19(5) of the Act is not enlivened in this case. The Tribunal notes the COI dated 22 July 2024 makes no reference to the assault perpetrated by Ms A: the stated cause of injury is 'king hit while [at event]'. The incident is further described in the COI as 'punched in the back of the head,' which is consistent with the Applicant's account of the assault by Mr A. The Applicant has not provided any medical reports verifying that he was injured as a result of the assault by Ms A, as required by s 39(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
5. For the reasons given above, the two acts (being the assault by Ms A and the assault by Mr A) are related for the purpose of s 19(4) of the Act and constitute 'a series of related acts'. Accordingly, the acts are a series of related acts that constitute a single act of violence: section 19(7) of the Act. Section 36(2) of the Act provides that only one recognition payment is payable to a single victim in respect of a series of related acts of violence against the victim.
6. For completeness, the Tribunal notes that if the claim that the assault by Ms A is a separate act of violence in respect of which the Applicant is eligible for a recognition payment was considered by the Tribunal, it could not succeed. This is because, even if it were accepted there was sufficient evidence of injury for the purpose of s 19(1)(c) of the Act, the documentary requirements of s 39(2)(b)(ii) in relation to the alleged act of violence by Ms A are not met. As noted above, the COI relied on by the Applicant in respect of his claim that he was a victim of an act of violence perpetrated by Ms A only verifies he was injured as a result of the assault by Mr A and makes no reference to the incident in which he was assaulted by Ms A.
7. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has already been approved a Category D recognition payment as a primary victim of the act of violence that occurred on 4 July 2024. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's submission that he was the victim of a separate act of violence perpetrated by Ms A on 4 July 2024. Accordingly, the Applicant is not eligible for an additional Category D recognition payment.

1. For the reasons given above, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.

(1) The decision of the Respondent of 8 April 2025 is affirmed.

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.