RICHARDSON -v- LAWFORD [2020] WADC 58 | Case summary

RICHARDSON -v- LAWFORD [2020] WADC 58 | Case summary | Zoe

[26]

Copy medical records were provided to the assessor from King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, relating to Ms Lawford's admission and discharge on 2 January 2008. She claimed to have been asleep at midnight when she was thrown to the floor by Mr Richardson, lifted from the floor by her neck and strangled, such that she lost consciousness. She also recalled being kneed in the right flank. She complained of a neck sprain. She was then 16 weeks pregnant with the first of their two daughters. This was not reported to the police by Ms Lawford, who said she was in fear of Mr Richardson and of being tormented by him, if it were to be reported.
In her statement of effects, Ms Lawfored claimed that, following an argument on 2 March 2014, Mr Richardson elbowed her once on the left side of the face. Ms Lawford has also described this incident in a later statement answering queries from the assessor in terms of her being 'decked' by Mr Richardson. This was reported to the police.
In addition to these matters, there were some police incident reports available to the assessor detailing matters occurring on various dates as follows:
1. 17 February 2006, in which the parties verbally abused each other and each claimed that the other party had been physical with them. Each was unwilling to provide a statement;
2. 21 February 2006, the details of which are not known, save that police returned Ms Lawford to her home;
3. 3 March 2006, regarding what Mr Richardson described as a 'verbal and physical confrontation'. He said he fended off Ms Lawford's assault, as a result of which she fell hitting the back of her head, following which police took Ms Lawford to hospital for a check-up. Both parties refused to press charges against the other party;
4. 30 September 2006, following a separation, when Ms Lawford claimed Mr Richardson stole her television and DVD player and smashed her car window. Each party gave a different account of events;
5. 25 November 2006, when police were called twice to their home. Both matters involved arguments and although Ms Lawford claimed she had been assaulted in the second argument, that was later established to not be true. She wanted Mr Richardson away from her; and
6. 19 March 2014, when there was a 'new incident', but details are not known. However, this police report observed that 'the last incident' was recorded as having occurred on 12/13 July 2011 ie that incident detailed above at [2.3].
Further, there was a medical report provided to the assessor dated 15 March 2017 from Dr Frederick Ng, consultant psychiatrist, detailing Ms Lawford's allegations of violence by Mr Richardson against her in that he 'decked her', 'split her head open', 'choked her until she lost consciousness many times', 'picked her up by the neck', 'pushed her dentures back into her mouth', 'punched her head', 'pulled her leg so hard she could not walk' and that he 'did it all the time'. Dr Ng also reported on Ms Lawford's claims of emotional abuse in a domestic setting.

[38]

Ms Lawford said she was not aware of her right to claim criminal injuries compensation until receiving advice on 2 June 2015. She then prepared and filed her first claim on that date. This is not, by itself, a sufficient basis upon which to grant an extension of time within which to apply. However, she also said that until she prepared her 2017 application, she was not in a frame of mind to seek legal advice and organise her affairs due to mental and physical illness.
It is clear that, at all relevant times, Ms Lawford suffered from mental issues impairing her capacity to deal with matters, as reported by Dr Ng below.
Ms Lawford also referred to her parenting commitments and the need to constantly move residence in order to avoid Mr Richardson as reasons for her delay however, Mr Richardson now challenges these matters.
If the extension is not so granted, then Ms Lawford will be denied compensation. That on its own does not justify the granting of an extension of time to make her application. However, given the three convictions of Mr Richardson and Dr Ng's report, the prospects of proceeding to an award on a compensation application within time would have been high.
Given that Mr Richardson did not participate in the process of the compensation application for reasons to be explained shortly, delay by Ms Lawford in making her application did not prevent the assessor from determining whether or not to make a compensation award, and if so, to quantify that award. The police information and Dr Ng's report provided a basis for the making of an award.
Further, when the application for compensation was considered, there was no difference in the ability of Mr Richardson to have opposed that application, whether or not it was brought within time or within such extended time as the assessor granted. That is because he did not respond to the assessor's request for him to participate in the decision-making process. Therefore, the application for compensation was able to be progressed on the materials provided by Ms Lawford.
However, Mr Richardson's position is now different. He claimed that, at the time of the application for compensation, he did not know of it but now, he does, and he wants to adduce evidence and information on appeal to contradict claims made by Ms Lawford. Save for this added dimension, there does not appear to be any injustice to Mr Richardson by extending time to Ms Lawford to bring her application out of time. This is especially so if his new evidence and information is received, which it will be, for reasons which follow.
In these circumstances, leave should be granted to Ms Lawford to commence her compensation application out of time.

[41]

Ms Lawford relied upon documentation provided by the police, KEMH, SCGH and Dr Ng.
The information received from the police and the hospitals is partly detailed above. Further information is detailed below.
The report of Dr Ng followed his consultation on 15 March 2017 with Ms Lawford.
Dr Ng had available to him a copy of Ms Lawford's statements of effects and answering the assessor's queries together with copies of hospital records, police incident reports and other police materials dealing with the convictions and other incidents detailed above at [2] - [5] inclusive. He also took a history of relevant matters from Ms Lawford. She alleged frequent verbal abuse and physical violence.
Dr Ng had seen and treated Ms Lawford 14 years previously. He recorded that, in 2003, he diagnosed her with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and some type of personality disorder. He could not recall the type of disorder from when he previously saw her.
Dr Ng reported that Ms Lawford suffered post-natal depression after the birth of her first child. Dr Ng was clearly aware that Ms Lawford had a history of illicit drug use, but he said she was not using such drugs at the time she presented to him.
Dr Ng reported that the relationship between Mr Lawford and Mr Richardson endured from 2005 until 2014.
Dr Ng reported that Ms Lawford provided a plausible history of physical and emotional traumatisation in the course of her relationship with Mr Richardson. Dr Ng was not entirely clear how emotionally stable she was when she commenced her relationship with Mr Richardson. Nonetheless, from her history as she provided it, Dr Ng found that her relationship with Mr Richardson would have, more likely than not, significantly increased any pre-existing depressive and anxiety symptoms and also would have had a negative impact on her self-confidence and self-worth, over and above what may have been deficits regarding these parameters prior to her relationship with Mr Richardson.
Ms Lawford reported current and ongoing residual anxiety and depressive symptoms. Dr Ng thought she developed psychiatric symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder in the course of her relationship with Mr Richardson, although it was not entirely clear exactly when the post-traumatic stress disorder actually arose during that relationship. At its worst, this disorder had been of a moderate to moderately severe extent and in 2017, it was still there to a residual extent.
Ms Lawford suffered nightmares about Mr Richardson abusing her. She re-lived those occasions when she was awake. She described the domestic violence she received, which exceeds those matters leading to conviction. She was fearful of Mr Richardson whilst living with him.
Dr Ng also said that any pre-existing depression and anxiety of a generalised variety would have been exacerbated to some extent or other in the course of Ms Lawford's relationship with Mr Richardson. Her symptoms were in excess of mental and nervous shock.
The most significant contributing factors in exacerbating any pre-existing anxiety and depression and precipitating the onset of post-traumatic stress disorder would, more likely than not, have been the physical and verbal abuse suffered by Ms Lawford during the course of her relationship with Mr Richardson and also, the incident on 2 January 2008.
Dr Ng noted that the incident, which reportedly occurred on 2 January 2008, would more likely than not have exacerbated any depressive and anxiety symptoms arising in the course of her relationship with Mr Richardson.
In November 2016, Ms Lawford began taking Seroquel to assist with sleep and anxiety. This followed her admission to the psychiatric ward of Bentley Hospital with post-traumatic stress disorder, which she claimed resulted from her relationship with Mr Richardson. There were other periods of hospitalisation.
Ms Lawford's relationship of between 2 and 4 months with another male after the termination of her relationship with Mr Richardson may have perpetuated and exacerbated anxiety and depression. The fact that her two children were, in 2017, residing with Mr Richardson may also have perpetuated her depressive component.
Dr Ng thought that during the course of the relationship with Mr Richardson, her capacity to engage in general, social and recreational activities would have been at least moderately impaired. This impairment remained in 2017 and would persist to some extent into the foreseeable future. The same comments could be said about her relationships with family and friends, her personal wellbeing, self-esteem, self-confidence and capacity to engage in home duties.
Dr Ng considered that Ms Lawford required 16 sessions of psychotherapy. They are required at least once every two to three weeks at a cost of $355 per session, together with the use of the tranquiliser Seroquel, for the next one to three years. The estimated cost of such medication was between $50 and $100 per month.
Even with psychiatric treatment, as recommended, for some 12 to 24 months after 2017, some degree of psychiatric impairment would be likely to persist into the foreseeable future. It is not known if Ms Lawford has undertaken any or all of this recommended treatment.
It is to be appreciated that when Dr Ng prepared his written opinion, he could only proceed with information and materials which Ms Lawford and her solicitors provided to him. Then, after consideration of that information and those materials, together with results he obtained from his clinical investigation, Dr Ng provided his opinion. He could not give an eye witness account of her past life. He could not be expected to have provided definitive answers. However, he could express his opinion that something is more likely than not to be the case, based on the evidence and information provided to him, and this is not only what he was required to provide in this matter, but what he did provide.
The requirement is for an assessor to be satisfied that Ms Lawford suffered a compensable injury caused by the proven offences and here, that injury was mental and nervous shock in the form of a psychiatric condition.
Section 3 of the Act defines 'satisfied' as meaning:

[51]

The assessor was satisfied that Ms Lawford suffered a compensable injury caused by the proven offences. This is because of Dr Ng's findings, referred to above, which are 'more likely than not to be' the case. The choice of that wording was his, but those findings were open to be accepted by the assessor in concluding she was satisfied that Ms Lawford's compensable injury was caused by the proven offences. That is to say that, the assessor was satisfied that the proven offences materially contributed to a worsening of Ms Lawford's pre-existing mental condition, such that an award was required to compensate her for the worsening of that pre-existing condition.
The learned assessor determined that in the circumstances of Ms Lawford's case, compensation for her injuries arising from the three proven offences, outlined above at [2], should be assessed in the sum of $15,500. Additionally, the sum of $1,215 was provided as a maximum for future medical treatment expenses and there was an allowance for Dr Ng's report in the sum of $1,727. The potential total is the sum of $18,442.
The provision in the award for future medical treatment required a mental health plan from Ms Lawford's general medical practitioner for counselling.
In viewing Ms Lawford's physical injuries and psychiatric condition as a whole, as set out in the materials available to the assessor, a sound discretionary range for the assessment of damages for Ms Lawford's loss of enjoyment of life would be a sum in excess of the amount awarded by the assessor. However, she was not entitled to be awarded compensation having regard to her condition as a whole. She was only entitled to be awarded compensation for such part of her condition as was materially contributed to by Mr Richardson's offending behaviour leading to his convictions. It is therefore clear that by awarding only $15,500, the assessor disentangled Ms Lawford's overall psychiatric condition to only compensate her for so much of that condition as was materially contributed to by Mr Richardson's offending giving rise to his convictions.

[55]

At the hearing of his appeal, Mr Richardson said he did not know whose the Warnbro address was. He orally listed addresses of places at which he had lived from 2006 onwards, but the Warnbro address was not one of those addresses. At first, he said he had never lived at that address. Later, he accepted that he did live at this address, for about six months, in 2015, which was the year in which the first compensation application was made.
Further, the Warnbro address was Mr Richardson's address in a prosecution notice lodged on 12 December 2006 in respect of a breach of a violence restraining order on 9 December 2006. Contradicting this however, are other police materials indicating that when he was refused bail on 11 December 2006, his address was in Port Kennedy and the incident report from this time recorded his address in Gwelup. The Warnbro address was also his address in a prosecution notice dated 6 August 2011 relating to the aggravated unlawful assault on 12/13 July 2011. However, this last mentioned prosecution notice was not available to the assessor. It was provided by Mr Richardson in the course of this appeal.
Mr Richardson said he received the letter dated 6 March 2019 on or about 2 July 2019. This letter advised him of the compensation award and his right to appeal within 21 days from the date of the award. This letter also provided the telephone number of this court for him to call on any queries he may have had regarding lodging an appeal. Further, this letter required him to attend an appointment on 23 July 2019 when the assessor sought an order that he repay part of the award. Mr Richardson duly attended. The order was made.
Mr Richardson has not offered any explanation as to how the letter dated 6 March 2019 came to be delivered to him or by whom it was so delivered. Such explanation could verify his claim that he first received the letter on 2 July 2019. It might also be expected that such explanation would need to be provided by the person who facilitated delivery on 2 July 2019. Such explanation might or might not also lead to an explanation of what happened to the letter from the assessor dated 10 April 2018 giving notice of the compensation application.
Then, after the appointment referred to above at [60], by letter dated 23 July 2019, and addressed to him care of his parents' address, which Mr Richardson said was his postal address, he was formally advised that a compensation reimbursement order in the sum of $10,000 had been made against him, which he was required to repay at $5 per week. Although by s 55(2) of the Act, this reimbursement order was also open to be appealed by Mr Richardson, he has not appealed such decision.

[60]

Mr Richardson's grounds of appeal, the merits of his appeal and the reasons for his delay, together with the same considerations as set out in Hansen v Bolton above at [14], are relevant to the issue of whether it is just to allow him an extension of time within which to appeal.
First, Mr Richardson swore, under oath, that the Warnbro address was an 'incorrect' or 'wrong' address. Then, at the hearing of the appeal, he at first denied, but later conceded, he had lived at this address in 2015. The police materials connect him to this address in 2006 and 2011.
Mr Richardson has not disclosed how he came to receive the assessor's letter dated 6 March 2019.
Further, this does not explain the delay from 2 July until 25 September 2019. The explanation he has given above at [69] is without any foundation and this is especially so given that the invitation to contact this court, in the event of any queries on lodging an appeal as set out above at [60], was not acted upon by Mr Richardson, who has been less than frank and fulsome on these matters.
Secondly, there is the concern that Ms Lawford may have dissipated the compensation award, which was to have been sent to her within six weeks after 6 March 2019, but only after the time period allowed for an appeal had elapsed: s 47(a). So far as is known, she has not been employed for many years. If she has spent all or most of the award, then she will be severely prejudiced in now having to find funds to repay the award, or so much as might be required if her award is reduced.
Thirdly, if Mr Richardson is denied leave to appeal out of time and his evidence and information is not accepted, then the award and reimbursement order may remain without him having had an opportunity to be heard on his evidence and information. Arguably, he would then have been denied the right to have been heard on the making of an award and its quantum. However, he was not a party to the compensation application as instituted by Ms Lawford. Had the assessor not thought he may be liable to have a compensation reimbursement order made against him, and had such order not been sought and made, then Mr Richardson probably would still not be aware of the application and the award.
Before further determining the issue of leave to appeal out of time, consideration should be given to the merits of the appeal and this, in turn, requires consideration of whether Mr Richardson should be allowed to provide further evidence and information in the appeal.

[68]

It follows that s 56(1) requires this court to decide the application afresh solely on the evidence and information that was in the possession of the assessor, provided that this court may receive further evidence and information. This proviso is then further qualified by the prohibition such that this court cannot conduct a hearing.
Seventhly, this court on appeal can only confirm, vary or reverse the assessor's decision, either in whole or in part: s 56(2)(b). The court is not empowered to send the matter back to the assessor to conduct a hearing.
In summary, Mr Richardson wants the evidence and information he has provided to be considered in circumstances in which he claimed to have been unaware of the compensation application until after the award was made. Notwithstanding doubt about that claim, the material will be received so as to afford procedural fairness to him, given his concerns with this matter proceeding without him being involved in the initial decision to make an award and the assessment of that award.
However, the practicality of this being an appeal means that this court cannot conduct a hearing to determine any matters of conflict which the new evidence and information might raise. Further, there will be a question of how much weight, or importance, can be attached to Mr Richardson's evidence and information, especially if it places this court, as a fact finder, in a position where it cannot conduct a hearing to resolve issues of fact arising from Mr Richardson's further evidence and information which may be in conflict with evidence and information provided by Ms Lawford.
In this regard, it may be necessary to consider various aspects of Mr Richardson's evidence and information including its relevance and the detail sought to be provided, its inherent likelihood or unlikelihood, the seriousness of the matters raised, the consequences that might flow from accepting or not accepting the evidence and information, whether it is exact or inexact, definite or indefinite, or whether it requires inferential reasoning to reach a conclusion and whether it is any way confirmed by other evidence which can be accepted, including documentary materials and their reliability.

[82]

As to the second conviction on 27 July 2009 relating to the breach of protective bail conditions on 22 December 2008 referred to above at [2.2], Mr Richardson alleged that this incident, like the previous matter for which he was convicted, was a set up. In dealing with this matter, it is necessary to note that the forerunner to the breach charge was an alleged assault upon Ms Lawford by Mr Richardson on 15 November 2008, also referred to above at [2.2]. This will be dealt with below at [113] - [116] inclusive.
Mr Richardson claimed that, on 22 and 23 December 2008, Ms Lawford went to his place of work at which she borrowed his telephone in order to call her own phone. It can be noted here that his claim relates to successive days; not the same day. He also said she convinced him to call the police on her behalf to drop the assault charge, as 'her mental state was of devastation'. He said this was 'cunningly manipulated'.
Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to comment on these matters, but if she went to his place of work as he claimed, he would, no doubt, have been able to call work witnesses as to that fact. Further, Mr Richardson referred to the existence of security cameras at his place of work which, if his claim was true, could have provided film to prove that she did attend over two days, at his place of work. Further still, his and her telephone records would have shown that the calls were made on successive days and the locations from where those calls were made and where they were received, as being the same location.
However, material facts to which Mr Richardson pleaded guilty by way of breach of the protective bail conditions state that Mr Richardson telephoned Ms Lawford twice on 22 December 2008, at about 12 noon and 2.00 pm, requesting she ask the police to discontinue proceedings relating to his alleged assault upon her. These two telephone calls were specified in the material facts by their time and date. Ms Lawford said she received them at Perth and Stirling respectively. The material facts also stated that Mr Richardson made his call to police at Stirling on the same day, after his two calls which breached the protective bail conditions. This therefore contradicts his sworn claim as to the circumstances in which he said the offending calls were made over two days. The material facts also state that on 22 December 2008, Mr Richardson telephoned Stirling Police and insisted that Ms Lawford was going to drop the assault case. He requested that police contact her to arrange that it be discontinued.

[90]

Mr Richardson also referred to an alleged incident on Wednesday 2 January 2008 resulting in Ms Lawford attending KEMH and then SCGH. He denied any assault and said that hospital records did not record any visible markings, bruising or swelling. This is true. In fact, staff at KEMH recorded that there were no signs of bruising on Ms Lawford's neck. X-rays did not reveal any abnormality in her cervical spine.
Mr Richardson's explanation for this matter was that he received a telephone call at his place of work from Ms Lawford at SCGH. She told him she had had a fall. She sought money and cigarettes from him. He said he left his work to attend to her at the hospital. Hospital records indicate he attended at 11.30 am and again, before 12.25 pm. He was turned away on both occasions. She was discharged at 1.40 pm.
Contrary to Mr Richardson's explanation, the KEMH notes record Ms Lawford's claim that she was assaulted at home around midnight and that her partner was the offender. Ms Lawford was in a distressed condition. Consistent with her claim at least as to time, hospital records also report an ultrasound of her abdomen was taken at 3.28 am on 2 January 2008. She was then pregnant with her first child to Mr Richardson. How she was transported from their home in Dianella to KEMH is not known. At 6.05 am, St John's Ambulance took her from KEMH to SCGH. The same notes record that she felt unsafe to return home and wanted to leave her partner. She was in a distressed condition.
It is not possible to accept Mr Richardson's claim relating to this matter. On his version of events, he did not know Ms Lawford was at the hospital until he received her telephone call whilst he was at work. Ms Lawford must have left their home, where they were both residing, quite early that morning to have been at KEMH for an ultrasound at 3.28 am. Ordinarily, Mr Richardson would leave for work early each morning, but not this early.
Mr Richardson observed that people do fake neck injuries in attempts to defraud or be prescribed strong pain medication. He also said that, on this occasion, Ms Lawford was withdrawing from illicit drugs. Mr Richardson claimed Ms Lawford faked her injuries for the purpose of obtaining strong pain medication.
Ms Lawford was recorded in the emergency department notes as taking subutex for opiate dependence and as a former intravenous drug user with Hepatitis C. Whilst in hospital, she was prescribed once only medication of panadeine forte, nicotine patches and another drug the name of which is difficult to decipher, but it appears to be a form of morphine. She received two doses of diazepam. She has not had an opportunity to comment on Mr Richardson's claims about this incident.

[93]

Mr Richardson:
1. contradicted himself as to not having, but then having, legal representation when pleading guilty on 25 July 2008 to breaching the domestic violence restraining order and on 27 July 2009 to breaching the protective bail conditions. These were not just separate offences. They were dealt with one year apart;
2. provided unsatisfactory reasons for pleading guilty on 8 November 2011 to the assault on 12/13 July 2011;
3. wrongly claimed Ms Lawford did not suffer an injury from the assault on 15 November 2008. Given that the statement of material facts refers to 'actual' bodily harm and therefore, the police must have observed some objective evidence before making such a comment which is consistent with the nature of the act causing her bodily harm and her bruising, as she claimed;
4. wrongly claimed Ms Lawford did not suffer more than an indent to her ring finger and that her injuries were dismissed by police as being untrue when the police incident report and photographs reveal more extensive injuries for the assault on 12/13 July 2011;
5. made claims relating to the incident on 2 January 2008 which are inconsistent with the hospital records detailing Ms Lawford first underwent ultrasound examination at 3.28 am that morning. The timing of that procedure is consistent with her claim of an assault, around midnight at her home. It is inconsistent with his claim of her suffering a fall after he went to work;
6. claimed that Ms Lawford faked her injuries on 2 January 2008 in order to gain strong pain medication. It was for the medical staff to determine the appropriate medical care required, including medications. The hospital records do not reveal any illicit drug problem. This claim does Mr Richardson no credit;
7. The truth of what occurred on 2 March 2014 cannot be determined solely on the papers. The physical consequences of the alleged assault would not seem to be of a lasting nature. Dr Ng has not commented on the mental consequences arising from this alleged offence, but he has commented on the effects of Mr Richardson's behaviour in general. The assessor has not made any award in respect of this alleged offence; and
8. denied Ms Lawford's claims of physical violence. He said, she has never had

[99]

With these matters in mind, it is necessary to turn to the remainder of Mr Richardson's affidavits.
Mr Richardson referred to, and provided, part of a copy internal report from the Department of Child Protection dated 12 November 2009. One purpose was to discredit Ms Lawford's allegation of violence being perpetuated by him, because in this report, Ms Lawford alleged Mr Richardson had only once used violence against her, four years prior to the report, when both of them were using illicit drugs. This one act of violence was denied by Mr Richardson, who then said that this 2009 report also exposed Ms Lawford's abilities to deceive and manipulate. Mr Richardson gave an example of Ms Lawford's dishonesty in falsely pretending to be a single homeless mother to obtain accommodation in Ballajura, whereas in fact the two of them were living together at the time. She has not had an opportunity to comment on this.
Mr Richardson also noted that in November 2009, Ms Lawford admitted herself to a mental health clinic on the basis of her step-father contributing to her then mental health condition. Prior to this, she had been visiting him each weekend. She was then in receipt of psychotropic medication. Records from mental health clinics or hospitals have not been provided. However, Dr Ng was aware of Ms Lawford's pre-existing mental condition, even if he may not have been aware of all of her hospital admissions and medications. Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to comment on this.
Mr Richardson referred to Ms Lawford's abusive text messages to him after they ceased residing together as showing she was not in fear of him. These were however, after the cessation of their cohabitation. Nothing turns on these texts.
Mr Richardson also referred to Ms Lawford's claim that she depended on alcohol and drugs to deal with his abuse. He said that she had drug and alcohol problems prior to them meeting and still did after they ceased cohabitation. Dr Ng was aware of, at least, her use of heroin and her drug use referred to in police incident reports and hospital reports.
Mr Richardson also noted Ms Lawford's claim that he came looking for her at her home when she lived in Golden Bay, but he claimed that he had never known her to live in that suburb. This address is however, referred to as her address in some of the police reports which involve Mr Richardson. It is therefore unlikely that he did not know of it. Ms Lawford has not had the chance to comment upon it. In any event, nothing turns on this.
Mr Richardson sought to contradict Ms Lawford's claim to the assessor that she was late in making her application for compensation because she 'was parenting the children' herself. The Family Court orders dated 25 March 2014 and 6 May 2016 indicate the children were living with Mr Richardson from March 2014. Mr Richardson said he took the children and left in early March 2014, after which he obtained the Family Court order. First, this contradicts Ms Lawford's statement to the assessor of her parenting after 2014. However, she did thereafter have access to them, although the frequency and duration of that access is not known. Secondly, it also contradicts Mr Richardson's claim that they separated in 2011. They may have then separated, but only temporarily or at least, not completely. He also denied her complaint that she was continually changing her place of residence because of him. Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to explain what she meant by the term 'parenting' or to comment on these matters. Dr Ng knew that the children did not live with her.
Mr Richardson said that on 2 March 2014, Ms Lawford awoke to check on her youngest child. She said Mr Richardson and that child had drawn over the bedroom walls, which resulted in an argument. The child also had a rash on her stomach. She said she would take the child to the doctor. This upset Mr Richardson who argued with Ms Lawford. He left the house with both children. She said that this was when he elbowed her to the face. She also said he decked her. He denied that he decked her. Mr Richardson noted that this was the last occasion on which Ms Lawford had custody of the children because just prior to this, on 28 February 2014, she had deliberately kicked their eldest daughter in the face and thereafter, he obtained an order for custody of both children on 25 March 2014. He said he reported this to the police, who reported it to the Department of Child Protection and that he took his daughter to a doctor. However, Mr Richardson has not provided any documentary material in support of this.
Ms Lawford had a different version of events and said that the kick was an accident. Mr Richardson was not present and so he cannot say what happened. She was however, using drugs at this time. As will be seen below at [178], this caused difficulties with her care of the children. Her drug use was the real concern for the DCP. Mr Richardson was then free of drug use and the children were accordingly moved into his care. Nothing turns on this, save to note that on this view of the facts provided by Mr Richardson, he and Ms Lawford were cohabitating together in 2014, which contradicts his claim that they separated in 2011. This supports Ms Lawford's evidence as to the duration of their relationship.
Mr Richardson challenged Ms Lawford's statement that she was living with him 'on and off' for the two years from 2015 to 2017. He said that he visited her nearly every day to care for her children, but would return to his own residence in Warnbro. Further, Ms Lawford also invited him to stay at her home on several occasions. He always declined, save that occasionally he stayed overnight or for a weekend, but he refused to be in a relationship with her after the assault allegations resulting in his conviction from 2011. Notwithstanding the different versions, there is still, on either view, substance in the ongoing nature of their relationship, including Ms Lawford's involvement in 'parenting' as set out above at [145].
Mr Richardson explained how he involved Ms Lawford in their children's lives, given that they were living with him. He said he always supported her to get well from her drug use for the sake of the children, and has photographs of the four of them together at events, but only subsequent to separation in 2014. This does not assist to determine the issue of the cause of Ms Lawford's mental condition.
Mr Richardson disputed Ms Lawford's claim that she rarely attended his home because she was looking after her father with leukaemia. Mr Richardson said she visited him regularly, not only to see the children, but to use his home for storage. He said that after her father died, she stayed with him for several nights for emotional support and for assistance at his funeral. He also disputed her claim that when she dropped the children at his home, she did not exit her car. He said she not only entered his home, but sometimes she also slept there. He was not a threat to her. Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to comment in these claims, but again, it demonstrates her involvement in 'parenting' the children.
Mr Richardson also submitted that it was rare for Ms Lawford to take the children away from his home as she did not have a safe place for them to stay and that is why most of the contact with the children was at his home and why he allowed her to stay there on numerous occasions. He supported her as the mother of the children and accepted that little girls need a mother in their lives, such that he denied her claim that she had barely seen him in the three months around the time of her father's death. He said that she was at his home almost daily, relying on him for emotional support, including accompanying her to her father's funeral. This appears to conflict with his claims above at [148]. Again, Ms Lawford has not had the chance to comment on this and in any event, it is a post-separation occurrence and it is not known how this might impact Dr Ng's opinion, if at all.
Mr Richardson denied that he kept returning to Ms Lawford and said it was she who kept returning to him. He said he only attended her home since separation in 2011 when she requested him to do so, or it was necessary for the sake of the children's welfare. This, in part, contradicts his claims above at [145] - [150], but it can also co-exist alongside those matters without impacting on the issue in this appeal. He said he has had to go to collect the children from her from when she has had access because she had not returned them. Again, this post-dates separation. In any event, there is no evidence as to how, if at all, this might affect Dr Ng's opinion.
Further, Mr Richardson disputed Ms Lawford's claim that, because of her youngest daughter telephoning her, she went to his home on an occasion when he was extremely unwell. This was shortly after he had moved into a new home. He said that he made that call and that his youngest child was too young to know his new address. In any event, Ms Lawford went there instantly, which he said shows that she could not have been in fear of him. If anything is revealed by this it is perhaps his desire for her continuing association in his time of need. However, this demonstrates a hallmark of domestic violence that victims tend to return to their partner. Further, this occurrence was post-separation. In any event, it is not known how this might affect Dr Ng's opinion, if at all.
These various matters, including particularly those above at [145] - [153], demonstrate that, whatever Mr Richardson's and Ms Lawford's own internal feelings for each other were, they both did their best for the sake of the children.
Mr Richardson also complained of Ms Lawford's erratic behaviour. He said, for example, that after the birth of their first daughter, she used the baby bonus money on drugs. They were then separated. He said she threatened to kill the baby if he did not return to her. He said the police attended on this occasion and she admitted making such a threat. There is however, no police report about this in any of the materials provided to the court, although there are hearsay statements about it in DCP materials provided by Mr Richardson. Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to comment on this. Nothing turns on this. Ms Lawford was a known illicit drug user, and such users act irrationally. Dr Ng was aware of her illicit drug use.
Mr Richardson claimed that Dr Ng's report contains errors such as Ms Lawford's claim to have been unable to work by reason of anxiety caused by Mr Richardson. Mr Richardson said she had not worked by reason of her car crash in 1996. Dr Ng was aware of that crash. Mr Richardson noted that she told Dr Ng she was training for work, which he said, shows that she then had sufficient confidence to re-enter the workforce. Dr Ng's report did go on to say that she was looking for driving work on a fly-in/fly-out basis. Nothing turns on this claim by Mr Richardson.

[101]

Mr Richardson's mother, father and two friends have each sworn affidavits in support of the appeal.
Mr Richardson's mother said Mr Richardson was living with her and her husband between 2012 and 2014. Mr Richardson's father said this residence occurred from 2011 until 2015, when his son won a significant compensation settlement from which he purchased a home. They each contradict not only Ms Lawford's claim that she was living with Mr Richardson until 2014, but also Mr Richardson's evidence as set out above at [145] - [152].
Mr and Mrs Richardson Snr both say that Ms Lawford has had more contact with them than simply picking up or dropping off the children. Mrs Richardson has seen Ms Lawford staying at her son's home on many occasions, including sleeping there. Mr Richardson Snr has seen Ms Lawford at his son's home on many occasions, without exhibiting any signs of fear of him. They have each attended end of year school performances together. This is apparently all post-separation conduct after 2011/2012.
Both Mr and Mrs Richardson Snr claim that Ms Lawford is untimely in returning the children after periods of access, such that they have been required to attend to collect the children. Mr and Mrs Richardson Snr have also seen Ms Lawford with an ex-fiancée Jason, her next partner Tim and then a subsequent partner, Chris.
Mrs Richardson referred to Ms Lawford spending time with Mr Richardson Jnr after her father passed away.
Mrs Richardson also contradicted Ms Lawford's claim that she was parenting her children from 2014. She also contradicted the claim that her son would spend time looking for Ms Lawford and noted that he does not drive a motor vehicle and he would therefore be unable to search for her.
Mrs Richardson also contradicted Ms Lawford's claim that Mr Richardson Jnr would not let her see the children. Further, Ms Lawford could not be fearful of Mr Richardson Jnr given that he allowed her to stay at his home.
Mrs Richardson had seen Ms Lawford at many birthday parties or other family occasions and that she has not been fearful of Mr Richardson Jnr.
David Boucher, who is Mr Richardson's taxi driver friend, said he saw Mr Richardson and Ms Lawford in company of each other when she seemed to be very relaxed, comfortable and sharing pleasantries. Mr Boucher said she expressed gratitude for the help Mr Richardson provided to her, including retrieving furniture from an ex-boyfriend.
Another friend, Tammara Malkowski, had seen Mr Richardson and Ms Lawford at the children's primary school and at his home. She also said that Ms Lawford threatened her at a school function.
Mr Richardson further stated that Ms Lawford had been reported to the police by reason of

[104]

Mr Richardson's affidavit material from himself, parents and two friends sought to contradict Ms Lawford's statements and to correct errors in Dr Ng's report. However, the affidavits do not really assist Mr Richardson at all.
In reviewing these affidavits, it can be seen that the common thread of the evidence is that from 2014 to 2019, Ms Lawford has been involved in her children's lives with Mr Richardson. There are two points to be gleaned from this evidence.
First, the parties may have separated by at least 2011, but thereafter they have been in regular contact, however described up to 2014, and beyond. The Family Court psychologist referred to a DCP memorandum dated 28 May 2014 noting separation from late 2008 until early 2009 and further separation in 2011, but recorded that each of Mr Richardson and Ms Lawford were less certain about when this final separation actually occurred. Mr Richardson recalled that it was after his conviction for the assault ie November 2011. Ms Lawford agreed. The psychologist noted they separated and reunited on numerous occasions, even if only temporarily. This evidence does not assist to determine the course of conduct during the relationship either up to 2011, or up to 2014 and beyond.
Secondly, Mr Richardson believes that this evidence of regular contact is inconsistent with Ms Lawford's claims of being in fear of him. At face value, that might be accepted. However, the experience of the courts is that women who have been subjected to domestic violence do return to their relationships and do continue to suffer. Even when they do leave, they may have young children they share with an offender, as is the case here, and so they still have to deal with their partner in terms of access to the children, no matter who has custody of them. Many will have to achieve a balance in their relationships by putting aside their personal fears, with or without the aid of orders from the Family Court. This might appear to be inconsistent with a mother's psychological makeup, but it is something to be achieved for the sake of her children.
This is not to say that all is well and that such women may not have deep-seated mental health issues. Here, Dr Ng believed Ms Lawford to be suffering to a residual extent in 2017 and so, there has been improvement in her condition once freed of the relationship with Mr Richardson, whenever that occurred, yet even with the ongoing nature of that relationship and whatever that nature may be, her condition endures and Mr Richardson still does not accept the fact of his convictions, his other conduct and the effect thereof, upon Ms Lawford. He does not acknowledge the validity of her mental difficulties which she still has, even allowing for mental health issues from before the time they were cohabitating together.
Although there is room for some of the matters detailed in the affidavit material provided by Mr Richardson to co-exist with the findings of Dr Ng, this evidence and information now provided by Mr Richardson does not undermine Dr Ng's opinion that the relationship between Ms Lawford and Mr Richardson caused an exacerbation of Ms Lawford's pre-existing depression, anxiety and maladaptive personality issues. Further, that it also brought on her post-traumatic stress disorder during their relationship, that that disorder is now in remission and that, it is more likely than not, that the matters giving rise to the convictions have caused part of Ms Lawford's overall mental condition, which give rise to her compensable injuries.
Dr Ng's opinion has not been contradicted in any manner or form by another clinical psychiatrist.

[106]

Any claim by Mr Richardson that Ms Lawford had deliberately kicked their oldest daughter in the face in early March 2014, as set out above at [146], has been previously contested by Ms Lawford, as set out above at [147]. The Family Court psychologist observed that, at that time, Ms Lawford was then detoxing from methadone and on a higher dose of other medications to assist with this. The psychologist also advised that, after discussing the matter with their daughter, the DCP considered the kicking to have been an accident. Although this is hearsay, it emanates from material put up by Mr Richardson.
Mr Richardson claimed he has custody of the two children because the Family Court recognised Ms Lawford's violence. Violence was not the issue when Mr Richardson obtained custody on 24 March 2014. Rather, the issue was her then drug use and its associated problems with that drug use compounding her difficulties in mothering her two young daughters. This was not the first time consequences of her misuse of illicit drugs by way of neglect had come to the attention of the DCP. Mr Richardson said he had managed to escape his illicit drug use by 2008 after two years of rehabilitation through the Drug Court. Ms Lawford has not had an opportunity to comment upon these matters. It has not been shown how, if at all, these matters might impact upon Dr Ng's opinion.
Further, the Family Court psychologist conducted a Personality Assessment Inventory on Mr Richardson. The psychologist thought Mr Richardson may not have provided his answers in a completely forthright manner. He went on to note that Mr Richardson was a defensive person, presenting himself as being exceptionally free of common shortcomings to which most individuals will admit and that he is reluctant to admit minor faults. Accompanying that reluctance may be a tendency to minimise any negative impact his actions may have on others. And this was how he presented when arguing this appeal, seeking to contradict his offending to which he pleaded guilty, denying assaulting Ms Lawford and denying any impact these matters may have had upon her mental health, superimposed as it was upon her pre-existing condition. Mr Richardson also asked, rhetorically on appeal, how could a

[114]

Mr Richardson claimed Ms Lawford misled and tricked Dr Ng to diagnose her with ADHD in 2003 so that she could obtain amphetamine based medication for that condition. He claimed that Ms Lawford boasted about how she was able to learn what to say to be so diagnosed. However, by reason that the medication was not 'like the real thing', she did not continue with it and she continued to inject methamphetamine. Neither Dr Ng nor Ms Lawford have had an opportunity to comment upon this. However, it predates her relationship with Mr Richardson and Dr Ng was aware of her 2003 condition.
Mr Richardson also claimed that Ms Lawford had seen many psychiatrists and psychologists since 2003, but none of these experts diagnosed her as suffering from ADHD.
These claims of deceiving Dr Ng and the lack of diagnosis of ADHD from another health professional cannot be accepted. Mr Richardson is not qualified to contradict Dr Ng. Further, what other health professionals may or may have not diagnosed is at least a matter of hearsay, if not speculation, on the part of Mr Richardson.
In support of his argument of deceit of Dr Ng by Ms Lawford, Mr Richardson relied on the following:
1. Ms Lawford reported only two or three visits to psychiatric wards in 2016 claiming Mr Richardson was responsible for those episodes, yet she has had many more psychiatric visits by reason of drug abuse. She made similar visits to mental health institutions in prior attempts to gain some kind of benefit;
2. in 2009, she was admitted to the mental health ward at Royal Perth Hospital on the basis that her step-father, with whom she was then living, had caused her to suffer a breakdown. However, this was deceitful as she was endeavouring to obtain accommodation with Homeswest because she could no longer live with her step-father. She told Mr Richardson of this deceit. At this time, Ms Lawford also made false allegations that Mr Richardson had sexually abused his daughter;
3. when her stepfather passed away, she made false allegations against her twin brother in order to inherit her step-father's estate and boasted about her plan having 'worked'. However, she was evicted shortly thereafter when the trustee learnt of her manipulation and deceit. Ms Lawford then entered an indigenous domestic violence centre on the basis that her brother was the abuser, thereby gaining emergency housing and funding for employment training; and
4. Ms Lawford has made numerous pre-emptive and unwarranted claims to remain in control of her children with Mr Richardson by reason of the financial benefits associated with custody. She previously also made false accusations of violence against her son's father, which Mr Richardson believed left her taking more extreme steps to keep control in his relationship with her.

[116]

Mr Richardson submitted that Ms Lawford telephoned police on approximately 16 occasions when there had not been any violence, but did not call the police when there had been alleged violence. These 16 occasions may or may not include some or all of the occasions referred to above at [5]. Mr Richardson said Ms Lawford sought to explain this not calling the police by her hope that he would change. He said that this is not logical, but then he said that she made several attempts to have him convicted of an assault and those attempts failed.
Mr Richardson also said he does not have a record of violence. This again demonstrates his stance of denial and the unreliability of his claims because contrary to this, there is at least the assault which occurred on 12/13 July 2011. Then, there is also the assault on 2 January 2008 and another probable assault on 15 November 2008, as detailed above. Although not satisfied that the alleged assault on 2 March 2014 occurred, it remains as an unresolved allegation.
In passing, it should also be noted that in 2009, Mr Richardson advised the DCP that his criminal record concerning illicit drugs related only to marijuana use. This is another false claim. From the known details of his record up to 2003, he in fact had two convictions in 1990 and 1995 for the possession of amphetamine and one conviction in 1991 for the use of amphetamine. In 2008, he was attending the Drug Court. However, it is not known why.
Mr Richardson denied any verbal abuse, saying that he would generally remain quiet when Ms Lawford verbally abused him. He said she 'had no stop button'. Here, it must be understood that Mr Richardson also had his own drug problems during at least the early stages of the relationship.
Mr Richardson submitted that Ms Lawford suffered an explosive temper with violent tendencies magnified significantly from her years of methylamphetamine abuse, as demonstrated by her armed robbery conviction, and her attacks on other school mothers, including Ms Malkowski, referred to above at [166]. Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to comment on these claims. However, Dr Ng was able to clinically assess Ms Lawford's temperament and he was aware of her past illicit drug use.
Mr Richardson denied Ms Lawford's claims of being fearful of him and not seeing the children. There are text messages and photographs supporting his claims. He said that it is she who acts in a threatening manner, as demonstrated by some text messages which he has provided. However, these messages and photographs are all after separation.
Mr Richardson contradicted the report of Dr Ng that Ms Lawford could not recall being treated with psychotropic medication whilst in her relationship with Mr Richardson and that she had only been hospitalised twice, being in 2016. Rather, Mr Richardson said she was using psychotropic medication and had been admitted to mental health wards on a number of occasions. There is however, no independent evidence of this and Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to comment on it. How, if at all, it might affect Dr Ng's opinion is also not known. As noted, that opinion has not been contradicted by another psychiatrist.
Mr Richardson said that many of the symptoms of which Ms Lawford complains were in existence before his relationship with her and arise from her amphetamine abuse. That may be so, but Dr Ng's opinion is that they were made worse by reason of Mr Richardson's conduct. Again, she is only to be compensated for the effect of Mr Richardson's criminal conduct for which he has been convicted.
Mr Richardson contradicted Ms Lawford's claim that since the termination of her relationship with him, she has not been in a relationship as set out in her statement seeking an extension of time for her compensation application. Ms Lawford has not had a chance to comment on this matter. However, Dr Ng's report refers to her relationship with a man named Jason and the effect upon her of the termination of that relationship.
Further, Mr Richardson complained Ms Lawford told the Family Court psychologist of the violence suffered by her, yet he said there are no hospital or police records of such injuries. He therefore submitted that Ms Lawford's allegations are untrue. However, there are the hospital and police records referred to above, including from 2 January 2008, 15 November 2008 and police photographs from 12/13 July 2011.
Mr Richardson disputed Ms Lawford's claim that, on 2 March 2014, he 'decked' her. Mr Richardson's submission was that if he had in fact 'decked' her as claimed then, she would have reported the matter to the police. She said she reported him for the elbow to the face, but police materials relating to this incident, if any, have not been provided. However, in his own submission as set out above at [187], she did not always call the police when there had been violence, for example, 2 January 2008 and even when she did, she did not proceed with an assault charge as perhaps occurred with, for example, the assault on 15 November 2008.
Mr Richardson claimed that in 2009, Ms Lawford temporarily ceased using drugs. He forgave her and they tried to rebuild their relationship. However, Ms Lawford sought admission into a mental health ward in 2009 claiming her father had contributed to her mental breakdown, but an experienced DCP officer realised Ms Lawford's manipulation, resulting in Mr Richardson obtaining sole custody of their then, only daughter. There is no independent evidence of this. Ms Lawford has not had the chance to comment on it. Further, it is not known how it might affect Dr Ng's opinion, if at all.
Mr Richardson also noted Ms Lawford's claim to be drug free when she consulted Dr Ng in 2017. He disputed this. He referred to her claim that she stopped using drugs in 2010 and her admission to the Family Court psychologist in 2015 that she was still using illicit drugs. He said she had been to rehabilitation in 2016 and 2017 and was using drugs in 2018. Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to comment on those claims. However, she did not claim to be drug free immediately upon entering and following the methadone program in 2010. She said she had overcome her dependence on drugs. She also did not admit to using in the sense of being addicted when she attended the Family Court psychologist. She simply made reference to the fact of her use of illicit drugs five months prior to meeting that psychologist. The courts are well experienced with drug addiction. It can be readily accepted that the entry into a methadone program is only the beginning, with freedom from illicit drug use taking some time. Illicit drug users do relapse or use from time to time, without being a constant user. Even accepting some ongoing use of illicit drugs from time to time, there is no evidence that such use would cause Dr Ng to revise his opinion, given his knowledge of her use.

[127]

Mr Richardson relied upon the following 'behaviour' of Ms Lawford, being her:
1. maladaptive personality issues;
2. near death experience in a 1996 car crash still affecting her mental and physical wellbeing;
3. already established mental health issues being treated from 2003 and her cessation of ADHD medication;
4. belief that Mr Richardson informed police of her involvement in an armed robbery;
5. conviction of the armed robbery leading to the traumatic loss of custody of her first born son, resulting in her becoming vindictive towards Mr Richardson;
6. post-natal depression following the birth of her daughter on 4 June 2008;
7. 2009 breakdown and her own family abandoning her;
8. sister's suicide and subsequent admission into a mental hospital;
9. assault of her daughter; and
10. failure to report these matters to Dr Ng.
However, these matters are not matters of Ms Lawford's 'behaviour' contributing directly or indirectly, to her mental health injury as suffered by reason of Mr Richardson's offending behaviour leading to his three convictions. At best, some of these matters reflect Ms Lawford's mental health condition.
Mr Richardson's offending occurred within the context of a domestic relationship. Accepting, that Ms Lawford misused illicit drugs and alcohol and that Dr Ng was aware of her heroin use during the relationship, it has not been demonstrated by psychiatric opinion, that such misuse contributed, directly or indirectly, to her present mental health condition, such as to refuse the making of an award or to reduce the amount of any award.
In coming to this view, it is necessary to view the matter in light of all known circumstances. Dr Ng's opinion was that Ms Lawford's pre-relationship mental condition was exacerbated by Mr Richardson's criminal conduct and other domestic violence, whether verbal or physical. Ms Lawford referred to her past drug and alcohol use in her statement of effects. It is referred to in police incident reports. Her past intravenous drug use is referred to in the hospital reports. Dr Ng had these materials. He referred to her heroin use, but noted she denied drug use at the time of his report. There is no reason to not accept his report of her claim in this respect notwithstanding Mr Richardson's claims set out above at [199]. Even if she was using as alleged, it has not been shown by expert psychiatric evidence how this might change Dr Ng's opinion, if at all. Mr Richardson is not qualified to give expert evidence that her drug use, even if ongoing, has affected the state of her mental health in a manner contrary to Dr Ng's report.
Further, it is more likely than not that her present mental health injury has been materially contributed to by Mr Richardson's behaviour leading to his convictions.
Mr Richardson complained that when reporting on Ms Lawford's psychiatric injuries in the 'incident section' of his report, Dr Ng referred to his other misconduct, yet there is no mention within that section of his proved convictions, such that Ms Lawford's complaints are merely hearsay. Further, he claimed that Dr Ng does not say specifically Mr Richardson caused her post-traumatic stress disorder.
As to these matters:
1. [49.2] above is repeated;
2. Dr Ng noted Ms Lawford's

[134]

Mr Richardson claimed that although Dr Ng was not entirely clear how stable Ms Lawford was when they commenced their relationship, the father of her son thought she was unstable and using illicit drugs, but he has not indicated when this was. This is hearsay. It is not suggested that this father is a psychiatrist. Whatever he might say does not impact on Dr Ng's expert opinion.
Mr Richardson complained that Dr Ng only made enquiries of Ms Lawford when preparing his opinion. That is true to a certain extent however, he also had other materials, including some police incident reports, statements of material facts and the KEMH and SCGH records, together with Ms Lawford's three statements. There was no need or requirement for Dr Ng to search out any government department, DCP or Family Court reports, which were probably inaccessible by him in any event.
Mr Richardson complained that Dr Ng could not say when Ms Lawford's post-traumatic stress disorder arose. There was however, no need for him to do so. Indeed, he was frank in saying that it was not exactly clear when she developed that disorder. It was sufficient that it developed during the course of their domestic relationship and that the disorder was materially contributed to by Mr Richardson's offending.
Mr Richardson complained that Dr Ng's opinion is based on hearsay and slander. However, the fact is that his opinion is based on Ms Lawford's information and the materials provided from the police and hospitals. Ms Lawford's presentation of information was a matter for Dr Ng to determine in his professional role as a clinical psychiatrist. His opinion was provided by way of expert opinion. It has not been contradicted by any other psychiatric opinion. Indeed, there is psychological support for it as set out above at [135], [136], [180] and [181]. Dr Ng's opinion is not displaced by Mr Richardson's further evidence and information. The admitted criminal record speaks for itself. If Dr Ng had insufficient information to provide an opinion, then it can be expected of a specialist psychiatrist from whom an opinion was sought that he would have said so.
Mr Richardson also said that Ms Lawford was untruthful when she advised Dr Ng that she does not have access to her two children with Mr Richardson. Dr Ng found that the lack of access to her children may have somewhat perpetuated her depression. Again, these are matters for which Ms Lawford has not been compensated. The learned assessor has disentangled these matters from the award.
Mr Richardson said that, during the course of their relationship, Ms Lawford was medicated with various antidepressants. Mr Richardson suggested that if Dr Ng had enquired of the medicos who prescribed those medications, then other factors would be found to have contributed to the deterioration of her mental health. Mr Richardson does not specify who those medicos might be or what those other factors are, other than to then go on and say it is the person closest to Ms Lawford who is generally the person she will believe is responsible for her symptoms. However, the fact remains that Ms Lawford was in a relationship with Mr Richardson from 2005 until at least 2011, if not 2014, and he has been convicted of the proven offences during that relationship. Dr Ng has provided his opinion about the cause of Ms Lawford's mental health issues by reason of Mr Richardson's conduct, in respect of some of which, he has been convicted.

[140]

The next matter raised by Mr Richardson related to the evidence and information he presented by way of affidavits to the effect that Ms Lawford has had access to her children, freedom and safety in Mr Richardson's surroundings and has used his house as a safe home since the end of their relationship.
First, the withdrawal by Mr Richardson of the privilege referred to above at [222], such that now Ms Lawford would not be welcome to live in his home once she lodged a compensation application and he found out about it, suggests a total lack of awareness of her mental frailty in terms of her fear of losing that privilege which he, as father to her children, would allow her, as the mother of his children, if she had not made such application. Mr Richardson fails to appreciate that this demonstrates his bullying behaviour and signifies his lack of understanding of her stress disorder and associated mental injury arising from their relationship and that part of that disorder was materially contributed to by his offending behaviour for which he was convicted and other parts of that disorder have been caused by his general behaviour, of which the withdrawal of the above privilege is but one example.
Another difficulty with these submissions at [222] and [223] is that they are based on conduct which post-dates their relationship. Further, Ms Lawford has not had the opportunity to comment on these matters. Even if Ms Lawford has attended at Mr Richardson's home without apparent fear, that fact does not displace the expert psychiatric opinion of Dr Ng.
Mr Richardson noted that apart from the incident on 2 January 2008, Ms Lawford did not advise Dr Ng of any visits to hospital as a result of Mr Richardson's activities. He said that she claimed multiple hospital trips in Family Court proceedings. He complained that Ms Lawford says whatever is necessary for the occasion at hand. First, there is no information available as to what information about hospital visits may be ascertained from the Family Court file and, secondly, Ms Lawford and Dr Ng have not had the opportunity to comment on this claim.
Mr Richardson alleged that Ms Lawford provided untruthful statements to the assessor dated 2 June 2015 and on 23 November 2017 when she signed her applications for compensation. The relevant form completed by her advised of a $5,000 fine for providing false information. Mr Richardson seeks to implement that fine. This really demonstrates an appalling lack of compassion for the probably unemployed mother of his two small daughters when that mother has her mental health issues.
Mr Richardson further explained his delay in appealing in that solicitors required $20,000 from him for their services. He has not said when he attempted to instruct solicitors or what advice they may have given him about instituting an appeal.

[143]

This appeal is another example of Mr Richardson demonstrating his determination by way of presenting numerous affidavits, materials and submissions to try and overturn Ms Lawford's compensation award and thereby to assert his dominance over her. Many of the matters set forth above demonstrate his behaviour and the denial by him, or his failure to appreciate, that his misconduct has had its own impact upon Ms Lawford's mental health.
There are therefore many reasons referred to above for not accepting the many claims by Mr Richardson and his witnesses outlined above. It is difficult to accept anything that Mr Richardson has to say unless it is corroborated. Further, there are many reasons, also referred to above, for finding that parts of Mr Richardson's affidavit material and submissions also underpin the factual basis of Dr Ng's psychiatric opinion.
Although the court is able to call for more information from Ms Lawford, to do so would potentially only compound contradictory versions of events, most of which have occurred after 2014, being the latest date for the separation of the parties, and which do not bear upon the issue arising from the application for compensation.
This court is not able to conduct a hearing which might be considered necessary to resolve any matters of conflicting evidence. However, most matters raised by Mr Richardson and his witnesses post-date the separation of Mr Richardson and Ms Lawford and/or upon which she and Dr Ng have not had the chance to comment. It is not known how, if at all, resolution of various contested matters might impact upon Dr Ng's opinion which has not been contradicted by another psychiatrist. The opinion has not been shown to be based on any false premise. There is no other psychiatric opinion to contradict it.
Leave should be refused to Mr Richardson to bring this appeal out of time and the appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons outlined above.
Notwithstanding the findings above at [132], the assessor's award in the sum of $17,227, being $15,500 for Ms Lawford's injuries and loss of enjoyment of life and $1,727 for Dr Ng's report, should be confirmed. Further, an allowance of $1,215 can be made for Ms Lawford's counselling, after consultation with her general medical practitioner to obtain a mental health plan in order to obtain appropriate Medicare rebates. The allowance is calculated as the 'gap' amount after Ms Lawford has processed her accounts through Medicare or any private health insurance under a mental health plan.

RICHARDSON -v- LAWFORD [2020] WADC 58 (7 May 2020)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (144 paragraphs)

RICHARDSON -v- LAWFORD [2020] WADC 58 (7 May 2020)

Legislation Cited (3)