HDE v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 33;

Sexually assaulted as a child between the ages of 12 and 18. The sexual assault finished when she was 18 in 1996. The claimant sought to suppress these memories.

1. On 20 October 2007, an Assessor determined the 2005 application under the Repealed Act. The Assessor dismissed the 2005 application on the basis that the act of violence was not established on the balance of probabilities. The Applicant did not seek review of the decision of the Assessor on 30 October 2007.
2. On 27 April 2018, the Applicant made an application for victims support as a primary victim of an act of violence under the 2013 Act. The Applicant stated the act of violence occurred between 1991 and 1996 and was reported to police in 2006 (COPS Event no. 26057780). The Applicant names the alleged offender (hereafter 'Mr X') and describes the act of violence as follows:

[The Applicant] was sexually abused by her mother's partner from the age of 13 to 17. She disclosed the abuse to her [mother] when it happened but was not believed. [The Applicant] still suffers today from that Trauma.

1. On 10 May 2019, the Assessor dismissed the application for victims support on the grounds that the act of violence was not established on the balance of probabilities.
2. On 26 August 2019, a Senior Assessor found that the application under review addresses the same facts as a determined application, previously submitted by the applicant (114354). Because the subject of a determined application cannot be reconsidered, the Senior Assessor dismissed the application for victims support (2730570). The Senior Assessor also found that they were unable to review the decision made on application 114354 due to the time elapsed since the decision was made and because it was made under the Repealed Act. For these reasons, the Senior Assessor dismissed the application for victims support.

1. On 20 June 2025, the Applicant filed an application for administrative review. In the grounds for application, the applicant stated:

Didn't have evidence and now I have. Police statement that person I told many years ago [named]. Solicitor died he had all the paper work and I don't know the location of where it could be. My health has been poor.

1. The Applicant provided the following documents with the application for review:

(1) A copy of the decision of Senior Assessor by made on 26 August 2019 on internal review.

(2) A copy of the decision of the Assessor made on 10 May 2019.

(3) A police statement made by a witness in the matter of 'historical sexual assault' dated 18 January 2024.

(4) A police witness statement made by the Applicant dated 13 November 2017.

(5) Various medical records.

1. On 12 September 2025, the proceeding came before the Tribunal for directions. The matter was set down for hearing to address the issue of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application for review, noting the application was lodged out of time.
2. On 18 September 2025, the Applicant filed a bundle of documents ('the Applicant's bundle') comprising of the documents she had previously submitted with her application for review and a statutory declaration by the Applicant dated 12 September 2025.
3. On 16 October 2025, the Applicant filed a bundle of documents pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) ('ADR Act'). The bundle of documents (pp 1-497) includes the Application for victims support made in 2005 (00114354) and the application for victims support made in 2018 (00273057), various police reports and medical records.
4. On 28 October 2025, the Respondent filed an outline of legal submissions.
5. The Applicant, who was self-represented, and the Respondent, appeared before the Tribunal on 7 November 2025 and made oral submissions.

1. In 2013 the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) ('the 2013 Act') established a new Victims Support Schedule to replace the Victims Compensation Scheme established by Victim Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (NSW) ('the Repealed Act').
2. The 2013 Act sets out eligibility criteria for victims of violent crime to receive different types of support and assistance. 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.
3. Schedule 2 of the 2013 Act contains Savings, Transitional and Other Provisions that provide for the transition from the Repealed Act to the 2013 Act. Clause 11 of Schedule 2 to the 2013 Act provides that the Act extends to acts of violence that occurred before the Act came into force, with the exception of an act of violence in respect of which an application for compensation has been made and dealt with under the Repealed Act. Relevantly, clause 11 states:

11 Previous acts of violence

Subject to this Act, this Act extends to an act of violence that occurred before the introduction day (other than an act of violence in respect of which an application for compensation has been made and dealt with under the repealed Act).

1. Section 9 of the ADR Act provides for when administrative review jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal under enabling legislation.
2. Section 51 of the 2013 Act provides for administrative review by the Tribunal in so far as the application for review relates to the determination of an application for a recognition payment.

51 Application to Tribunal for administrative review of decision concerning recognition payment

(1) An applicant for a recognition payment who is aggrieved by the decision of a decision maker in respect of the application may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of a decision made by the Commissioner following an internal review under section 49 of the decision maker's decision with respect to the recognition payment.

(2) An applicant for a recognition payment who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner in respect of the application may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of a decision made by the Commissioner.

1. An application for administrative review subject to any extension of time granted, must be lodged within the 28-day period provided for by s 55 of the ADR Act and cl 23 and 24 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014.
2. Section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ('the CAT Act') provides for the Tribunal to extend the time for an applicant to make an application to the Tribunal.

1. The issue for determination is whether the application should be dismissed under section 55(1)(b) of the CAT Act.

1. The Applicant's submits that her delay in making the application for review was beyond her control and she is now able to provide additional evidence in support of her claim to be a primary victim of an act of violence and entitled to a recognition payment. In 2007 she was not in a position to appeal the decision of the Assessor because her solicitor, who had possession of the relevant paperwork, died. She was also very unwell. The Applicant made a police statement on 13 November 2017. In 2023 the Applicant reconnected with a person, Mr ZC, who she had known in the 1990s and who she had told about her experience of child sexual abuse. On 18 January 2024, Mr ZC made a police statement to the effect that, in around 1994, the Applicant told him that Mr X forced himself on her.

1. The Respondent submits that the application for review should be dismissed pursuant to section 55(1)(b) of the CAT Act. The Respondent's position is that the facts in relation to the 2018 application are the same as the facts that were the subject of the 2005 application, which was determined under the Repealed Act in October 2007. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to conduct an administrative review of any decision made by an Assessor under the Repealed Act: CTC V Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 118 at [39]. Clause 11 of Schedule 2 of the 2013 Act prevents the Applicant from making an application for victims support in respect of an act of violence in respect of which an application for compensation has been made and dealt with under the Repealed Act.

1. The Applicant submits that because of the death of her solicitor and her health issues she was not in a position to seek review of the Assessor's decision in 2007. However, the explanation for the delay is irrelevant. This is because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review a decision made under the Repealed Act: CTC V Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 118 at [39]. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision made under the Repealed Act on 30 October 2007 in respect of the 2005 application.
2. The Applicant applied for a recognition payment in 2018 in relation to an alleged act of violence by Mr X under the 2013 Act. As noted above, on 10 May 2019 the Senior Assessor dismissed the application because it addressed the same facts as a determined application and therefore could not be considered.
3. To establish an act of violence under section 19 of the 2013 Act, the Applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that she was the victim of 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. However, an act of violence that is the subject of the application under the 2013 Act cannot be the same as an act of violence in respect of which an application for compensation was made and dealt with under the Repealed Act.
2. The Applicant does not contend that the alleged act of violence that is the subject of the 2018 application is different, distinct, or separate from the alleged act of violence that was the subject of the 2005 application and nor does the evidence before the Tribunal support such a conclusion.
3. The Tribunal has reviewed the bundle of section 58 documents filed by the Respondent. The Tribunal is satisfied that the act of violence that was the subject of the 2018 application is the same as the act of violence that was the subject of the 2005 application and that the 2005 application was dealt with by the Assessor on 30 October 2007. The alleged offender is the same in both applications. The COPs event reports relied on by the Applicant are the same. Minor variations in dates are not of significance. While she has presented additional evidence, including police statements, in relation to her claim that she was the victim of an act of violence by Mr X, the 2013 Act does not permit the Applicant to make an application for a recognition payment in respect of an act of violence for which an application for compensation has been made and dealt with under the Repealed Act.
4. The Tribunal finds the alleged act of violence that is the subject of the 2018 application is the same alleged act of violence that was the subject of the 2005 application for compensation under the Repealed Act. In these circumstances, the Applicant's application is misconceived and lacking in substance. This is because, as a result of having made an application for compensation in 2005 that was made and dealt with under the Repealed Act, the Applicant is not entitled to make an application for a recognition payment under the 2013 Act in respect of the same act of violence that was the subject of the 2005 application.

1. Section 55(1)(b) of the CAT Act relevantly provides that the Tribunal may dismiss the proceedings in circumstances where the Tribunal considers the proceedings are misconceived or lacking in substance.
2. Unfortunately for the Applicant, because the act of violence in respect of which the Applicant made an application for a recognition payment in 2018 is the same act of violence in respect of which the Applicant made an application for compensation that was made and dealt with under the Repealed Act, the Applicant is prevented from making an application for a recognition payment in respect of the same act of violence under 2013 Act: cl 11 of Schedule 2 of the Act. Having regard to all the evidence and the powers of the Tribunal under the 2013 Act, the CAT Act and the ADR Act, the Tribunal concludes that the application for review is not reasonably arguable and lacking in substance.
3. Given this conclusion, there is no utility in considering whether the Tribunal should extend time for the Applicant to make an application to the Tribunal pursuant to section 41 of the CAT Act_._ This is because, even if the application for review of the Respondent's decision was made in time, the Applicant could not succeed because the application made under the 2013 Act concerns the same act of violence in respect of which the Applicant made an application for compensation that was 'dealt with' under the Repealed Act in 2007.

1. Pursuant to s 55 (1) (b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the proceedings are dismissed.

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.

09 February 2026 - Amended typo to date of orders and date of decision.