Henry v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 51;

15. The defendant objects to the order noting that he believes he was the victim of abuse during his relationship with the victim. He provides considerable detail of behaviour of the victim which caused him concern and has provided an affidavit produced to the Family Court of Australia regarding the development of the relationship and his concerns. This details the defendant's concerns about violence, abuse and manipulation towards him and that he believes the victim is a liar.

16. The defendant notes that he has made reports about the victim's behaviour to NSW Police and believes she should have been charged with offences.

17. The defendant notes that he met the victim in December 2016 and he is unsure why 2015 is given as the commencement of the violence towards the victim.

18. The defendant does not believe the victim required the support approved to her nor that she needed to relocate as a result of his actions. He notes that he has not been convicted of direct violence towards the victim and only of sending text messages to her.

19. The defendant notes he is no longer working in his former position as a Police Officer. He notes that he has skills limited to law enforcement and will have difficulty finding other employment. He is supporting a teenage child, has a mortgage and pays $500 per month child support with income protection payments expiring in 2026...

22. The defendant was convicted of relevant offences as per section 58 of the Act, in that the offences for which they were convicted gave rise to an approval for victims support. The facts underlying the convictions and the facts underlying the approval of victims support involve offences of the same nature by the defendant against the victim during the relevant period.

23. I note the defendant indicates he was not directly violent towards the victim and she did not require the support provided. I note that offences of domestic violence of this nature are under the Act deemed to have involved violent conduct under section 19(3) of the Act. On this basis they have validly been found to be an act of violence in accordance with the Act and this is not basis to allow the objection.

24. While the defendant does not believe the victim required the support approved there is no independent (sic) to this effect. I note that the support was approve din accordance with the provisions of the Act and in a decision taking account of relevant considerations. This is not a basis to allow the objection.

25. In relation to the behaviour of the victim during the relationship and the defendant's concerns in this regard, I do not find this is a basis to allow the objection. I note that the defendant has confirmed the circumstances of relevant contraventions and the victim's behaviour otherwise has been reported to authorities and the subject of material provided to the Family Court of Australia...

1. The Assessor determined that the applicant had the opportunity to put all relevant matters before the Local Court of NSW in relation to the relevant criminal proceedings against him. This nonetheless resulted in his conviction for the relevant offences. The applicant's assessment of the victim's behaviour therefore had no bearing on the relevant convictions and are not a reason to allow the objection.
2. The Assessor noted that the applicant alleged that he did not have the financial means to meet the restitution order without hardship. However, the applicant had not provided any evidence of his earnings through income protection insurance or any assets that he holds. The Assessor also stated, relevantly:

31. I also note that while payment arrangements or alternatives to meet the obligation based on financial hardship cannot be considered by Victims Services directly, relevant material about this can be put forward for consideration if the matter is referred to Revenue NSW. I do not find the defendant's submissions regarding his financial circumstances a reason to allow the objection based on the current evidence.

1. The Assessor ordered the applicant to pay the restitution order in full by 2 June 2025, noting that if he failed to do so, the debt would be referred to the Fines Commissioner (Revenue NSW) for enforcement under the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) (the Fines Act) without further notice to the applicant.
2. On 28 March 2025, the applicant applied for administrative review of the decision dated 21 March 2025, because he was dissatisfied with the Determination of Objection. This application, which was made under s 66 of the Act, was made within the prescribed timeframe.
3. In the application for administrative review, the applicant states that the recognition payment made to the victim was paid in error as it "doesn't fall under any of the legislation for recognition payments." He also stated:

I am a victim of abuse and assault at the hands of (the victim...) and associated case links relate. A police review as to why procedural fairness was not afforded to myself is underway as is enquiries as to why (the victim) wasn't put before the court for assault.

After being assaulted by (the victim) several times, I was forced from the house. Evidence will be produced regarding this. Overseas 3rd May til 15th June 2025.

1. The matter came before the Tribunal for directions on 24 April 2025, at which time it was listed for a further directions hearing on 20 June 2025. On 20 June 2025, the matter was not yet ready for hearing and it was stood over for a further directions hearing on 29 August 2025.
2. On 18 July 2025, the Tribunal approved issuing of a summons to NSW Police to produce COPS event (number provided), case narratives arising from that event and all narratives attached to the Case to Commissioner of NSW Police Force.
3. On 29 August 2025, the Tribunal listed the matter for a further directions hearing on 26 September 2025, to enable the Summons documents to be resolved. On 26 September 2025, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file and serve any material in relation to or arising from the Summons material by 24 October 2025. It directed the applicant to file and serve any material in relation to his financial circumstances by 7 November 2025. The respondent was ordered to file and serve its submissions by 21 November 2025 and the Applicant was ordered to file and serve any submissions in reply by 5 December 2025. The matter was listed for hearing on 23 January 2026.

1. Part 5 of the Act concerns the recovery of victims support payments from offenders. The object of Part 5 of the Act is to enable financial support paid and recognition payments made under the Scheme to be recovered from persons found guilty of the crimes giving rise to the payments: section 57 of the Act.
2. "Relevant offence" is defined in section 58 of the Act, to mean any of the following:

(a) an offence in respect of which an act of violence or act of modern slavery (whether or not a series of related acts) is found to have been committed,

(b) an offence for or in respect of which victims support is given under this Act,

(c) any other offence if an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) was taken into account (under Division 3 of Part 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) when sentence was passed on the offender for that other offence.

1. Section 59 of the Act provides:

Commissioner's discretion to make provisional order for restitution by offender

(1) If the Commissioner is of the opinion that, before or after an approval for the giving of financial support or making of a recognition payment is given, a person has been convicted of a relevant offence, the Commissioner may make an order for restitution against the person.

(2) An order may not be made against a person if-

(i) the end of the period in which a claim may be made under an application for victims support under section 40 (6), or

(ii) the date on which the person was convicted of the relevant offence,

(b) civil proceedings have been commenced or are being maintained against the person, by or on behalf of the State, in respect of an action for damages arising from substantially the same facts as those on which the relevant approval was based.

1. Section 61 of the Act provides for the notification of an order for restitution personally or by post on the person against whom it was made.
2. Section 62 of the Act gives the person served with a notice of an order for restitution 28 days to lodge a written objection to the order with the Commissioner (or a period not exceeding 90 days if the Commissioner permits). The grounds of objection must be fully stated and the Defendant, that is the person subject to the restitution order, has the onus of proving their case.
3. Section 64 of the Act provides that:

(1) After considering an objection, the Commissioner may-

(a) allow the objection in whole or in part or disallow the objection, and

(b) confirm the decision to which the objection was made (with or without variations) or reverse that decision.

(2) The Commissioner may confirm the order for restitution if the Commissioner confirms the decision to which the objection was made (with or without variations).

(2A) Before confirming the order, the Commissioner may vary the order by reducing the amount payable under it.

(3) The Commissioner must revoke the order for restitution if the Commissioner reverses the original decision.

(4) For the purpose of enabling a defendant to apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review, the Commissioner is taken to have failed to determine an objection if 90 days have passed since the objection was lodged with the Commissioner...

1. Section 65 of the Act provides that the Commissioner must give a defendant who makes an objection written notice of the determination of the objection.

1. Section 66 of the Act provides that:

Administrative reviews by Tribunal

(1) The defendant may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of the decision (the original decision) to which an objection was made if-

(a) the defendant is dissatisfied with the Commissioner's determination of the objection, or

(b) 90 days have passed as referred to in section 64 since the objection was lodged with the Commissioner and the Commissioner has not determined the objection.

(2) The applicant's and respondent's cases on an application for an administrative review are not limited to the grounds of the objection.

(3) The applicant has the onus of proving the applicant's case in an application for an administrative review.

(4) An application for an administrative review-

(a) following a determination by the Commissioner of an objection-must be made not later than 60 days after the date of issue of the notice of the Commissioner's determination of the objection, or

(b) following a failure of the Commissioner to determine an objection within the relevant 90-day period-may be made at any time after the end of that period (but must be made as required by paragraph (a) following a subsequent determination of the objection by the Commissioner).

(5) The Tribunal may extend the time for making an application for an administrative review.

(6) The following provisions of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 do not apply to an application made under this section-

(a) Part 2 of Chapter 3,

(b) section 55 (3)-(6),

(c) Division 2 of Part 3 of Chapter 3.

(7) For the purposes of section 58(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997-

(a) the obligation of the Commissioner under that paragraph to lodge a statement of reasons with the Tribunal in respect of an application is limited to providing the Tribunal with a statement of reasons only in respect of the matters arising from the grounds specified in the application, and

(b) if one of the grounds specified in the application relates to a matter raised in an objection determined by the Commissioner-the Commissioner may rely on reasons previously given to the defendant by the Commissioner under this Act for the determination of the objection in explanation of that part of the original decision.

(8) In any review proceedings, a person who is a victim of the relevant offence to which the proceedings relate is competent, but not compellable, to give evidence or produce documents.

Note-

See also section 113 which provides that an application for victims support and any documents supporting the application are, subject to that section, not admissible as evidence in any legal proceedings.

1. Section 67 of the Act provides that:

(1) On an administrative review, the Tribunal may-

(a) confirm the original decision the subject of review (with or without variations) or reverse that decision, and

(b) make any other orders it thinks fit.

(2) Subsection (1) does not limit the generality of Division 3 of Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997.

(2A) The Tribunal may confirm the order for restitution the subject of the review proceedings if the Tribunal confirms the decision to make the order (with or without variations).

(3) The Tribunal may confirm an order for restitution made under section 59 if satisfied that the applicant for the administrative review has been convicted of a relevant offence. If the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it must reverse the original decision...

1. Section 69 provides that the Tribunal may reduce the amount to be paid under an order of restitution that it confirms having regard to: (a) the financial means of the defendant, and (b) such other matters as are, in the opinion of the Tribunal, relevant to the determination.
2. The Act defines a 'confirmed order' to includes an order that is confirmed by the Tribunal under section 67 of the Act. If an order is confirmed by the Tribunal, the amount payable under the order by the person is a debt payable to the Commissioner: section 70A of the Act. The due date for the amount for the amount payable is the due date for payment specified in the debt notice served on the person: section 70A(2) of the Act.
3. Section 70B provides the respondent may, by notice served on a person against whom a confirmed order has been made, require the person to pay the amount payable under the order. The due date for payment must be specified in the notice and must not be less than 28 days after the notice is served on the person: section 70B(3) of the Act. If the amount payable is not paid by the due date the debt may be referred to the Fines Commissioner and enforcement action for recovery of the amount may be taken under the Fines Act 1996 (NSW).

1. On 28 November 2025, the applicant lodged submissions and a bundle of documents in support of the application for administrative review. He made submissions that included the following:

(1) He alleged that the application for victims support lodged by the victim was "false and fraudulent." He stated that he has never been interviewed about any assault matter or any emotional or psychological abuse against the victim. He has also not been charged with any intimidation or harassment offence, but he was physically assaulted by her numerous times and she also harassed him and followed him;

(2) He denied that he ever physically abused the victim. He alleged that the victim "lost her mind" and ripped his sunglasses from his face and she "then lied to all and sundry (police, victim services and counsellors) about this incident."

(3) He did not cause any bruising injury to the victim.

(4) He denied that he stalked the victim after he was released from prison.

(5) He stated that he agreed to the AVO in the Local Court "without admissions" in order to keep the peace and so that he would possibly have less resistance in seeing his daughter, but the narrative in the AVO "was completely and utterly false."

(6) He breached the AVO, which stipulated that he could only contact the victim about matters pertaining to their daughter. However, he sent the victim messages about $156,500 that she transferred from their joint account to her own personal account without his permission. This was a compensation payment through is superannuation find. She then decided to "flee town out of necessity."

(7) He felt that the recognition payment was awarded in error as there was no assault.

(8) He felt that financial assistance for immediate needs did not result from any violence by himself, but because she needed to flee after transferring his superannuation lump sum payment from their joint account, and she knew that he was going to report her to the authorities.

(9) He concluded that the respondent has not applied the legislation correctly in seeking restitution against him.

1. The applicant stated that since he was medically retired from NSW Police Force in 2020, he had "done bits and pieces" jobs, such as lawnmowing, cricket coaching and as a case worker for children who are in and out of home care. He recently obtained causal employment as a Youth Worker which pays $43 per hour and he expected to work up to 30 hours per week on average. He disclosed a mortgage of $237,683.66 and that his mortgage payment will be about $718.19 per fortnight. He pays $606.92 per month in child support for his daughter who he has not seen for five years. After the victim withdrew the superannuation payment, his superannuation balance is less than $5,000.
2. I have also reviewed the documents produced under Summons by NSW Police.

1. The respondent's position is that the applicant has been convicted of a relevant offence and the conditions set out in s 59 of the Act have been satisfied in respect of the confirmed order. The respondent's position is that the restitution order should be confirmed without a reduction pursuant to s 67 of the Act.
2. With respect to the financial circumstances of the applicant, the respondent submits that the applicant has not provided a bank account statement or any independent verification of his income and expense position. In the absence of this information, there is insufficient information to assess to what extent (if any) a reduction is appropriate on financial hardship grounds. Therefore, the restitution order should be confirmed.
3. The Respondent submits that should the Applicant be unable to satisfy the debt by the due date, the debt will be transferred to the Fines Commissioner for enforcement under the Fines Act. Following this transfer, the applicant may request a payment plan.

1. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that restitution order was made with respect to a relevant offence in respect of which the applicant was convicted.
2. A restitution order cannot be made where civil proceedings by or on behalf of the State to recover damages are on foot, or if more than two years have passed since the later of the following: (i) the end of the period in which a claim for victims support could be made under s 40(6) of the Act or (ii) the date of which the person was convicted of the relevant offence. In the present matter, the victims support application was made on 25 January 2021, and the provisional restitution order was made under s 59 of the Act on 10 July 2024. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of restitution was made within time in accordance with s 59(2)(a) of the Act.
3. The submissions made by the applicant in relation to his conviction for the relevant offence, the conduct of the victim, and the decision to approve victim support for the victim are outside the scope of this review for the following reasons:

(1) While the submissions filed by the applicant deny his culpability for the offence for which he has been convicted, the Tribunal has no power to look behind a conviction in determining an administrative review of a restitution order: Clow v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 40 at [39].

(2) With respect to the complaints the applicant raises about the award of a recognition payment and financial assistance for immediate needs to the victim, the Tribunal has no power to review the respondent's decision to approve victims support for the victim in the course of an application for review made under s 66 of the Act: Singh v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2017] NSWCATAD 135 at [41].

1. The Tribunal must, under section 69(1)(a) of the Act, consider the applicant's financial means when determining whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the amount to be paid under an order for restitution.
2. The Tribunal has considered the available evidence about the applicant's financial circumstances. However, that evidence is limited and does not provide a complete picture, as there are no bank statements or tax returns. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has adequately established that he suffers from financial hardship such that he lacks capacity to make arrangements to service the restitution debt.
3. The object of Part 5 of the Act is to enable financial support paid and recognition payments made under the Scheme to be recovered from persons found guilty of the crimes giving rise to the payments: s 57 of the Act. It is for the applicant to establish his case: s 66(3) of the Act. Overall, the Tribunal considers that the evidence before the Tribunal provides a partial and incomplete picture of the applicant's financial means.
4. Having considered the available evidence about the applicant's financial means, including his evidence at the hearing, and the object of Part 5 of the Act, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this is a matter in which it is appropriate to exercise its under discretion under s 69(1) of the Act to reduce the amount of restitution to be paid.
5. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is to confirm the original decision of Respondent under s 67(1) of the Act and confirm the order for restitution in the sum of $11,500 under s 67(2A) of the Act.
6. The Tribunal notes that if the applicant fails to pay the restitution debt by the due date specified in the debt notice, the debt will be transferred to the Fines Commissioner for enforcement under the Fines Act. The applicant may then raise his alleged financial hardship with the Fines Commissioner and any request for a payment plan will be considered by Revenue NSW.

(1) The original decision of respondent is confirmed under s 67(1) of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW).

(2) The order for restitution in the sum of $11,500,000 is confirmed under s 67(2A) of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW).

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.