Victims of Crime Compensation Act 1994

Compensation levy: A monetary amount that a person convicted of a serious offence must pay to the Crown (s 3 definition). It is separate from any order for compensation to a victim (s 5(6)). The levy is not a fine, but it is enforced as one (s 9(1)). The term “compensation” is a label only; the Act does not link the levy to any particular victim’s loss or to the cost of administering the compensation scheme.

Serious offence: Defined exhaustively in s 3 as a list of offences under specified legislation: the Criminal Code, the Firearms Act 1996, the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, the Poisons Act 1971, certain sections of the Police Offences Act 1935, the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, the Marine Safety (Misuse of Alcohol) Act 2006, and specific provisions of the Traffic Act 1925 and the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999. The definition also includes any prescribed offence (s 3(g)). The scope is broad, covering everything from homicide and sexual assault under the Criminal Code to drink driving under the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, and minor drug possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001. Notably, the definition covers all Criminal Code offences, not just indictable ones, so summary Code offences are included. The practical effect is that most criminal convictions above a certain threshold will trigger the levy, with the notable exception of offences not listed (e.g., regulatory offences under the Environment Protection Act, or summary offences under local government acts unless they are “prescribed”).

Convicted: Defined in s 4 expansively. It includes not only formal convictions after a finding of guilt, but also situations where a court finds a person guilty but does not proceed to conviction (s 4(c)). It also includes offences that were taken into account by a court when sentencing the person for another serious offence (s 4(d)). This extends the levy’s reach to offenders who receive a dismissal or a good behaviour bond without conviction, and to offences that are not charged but are taken into consideration. The definition effectively widens the levy’s application beyond the traditional meaning of conviction, capturing those who might have avoided a recorded conviction under other sentencing legislation.

Combined limit: Defined in s 6(1) as $500 or a prescribed amount (whichever is greater). This is the threshold above which a financial hardship reduction may be available when a person is convicted of more than one serious offence at the same time and the total levy exceeds that limit. The limit acts as a cap on the maximum levy amount that can be imposed before hardship relief becomes available, but it is not an automatic cap; the court must be satisfied of financial hardship and has discretion to set a higher amount.

Director, MPES: The Director of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service, appointed under s 8 of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005. This official is the recipient of levy payments (s 8(1)) and the primary enforcement agent. The levy is enforced as a fine under that Act, which allows for a range of enforcement actions including deductions from wages, garnishment of bank accounts, suspension of driver licences, and imprisonment for default in some circumstances.

Payment timing: The levy is payable within 28 days after release from prison if the person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment that is not wholly suspended; otherwise within 28 days after sentencing (s 7(1)). However, the court may order a shorter period (s 7(2)). This timing is significant because it means an imprisoned offender does not become liable to pay until after release, potentially years after the conviction, which may complicate collection and increase the chance of default if the offender lacks stable employment upon release.

Offenders: The primary class of persons affected are those convicted of a serious offence as defined. This includes adults convicted in the Supreme Court or in a court of petty sessions (Magistrates Court). It excludes persons convicted in the Magistrates Court (Youth Justice Division) or convicted by the Supreme Court of an offence committed before attaining 18 years (s 5(2)). The Act does not distinguish between first-time and repeat offenders; the levy applies equally. However, the hardship provision in s 6 provides a safety valve for those with multiple convictions who would otherwise face a total levy exceeding $500 and who can demonstrate financial hardship.

Courts: The Supreme Court and Magistrates Court (when not sitting as the Youth Justice Division) are affected because they must enter the levy liability in the record of conviction (s 5(4)), give notice to the Director, MPES (s 8(2)), and ensure the notice of conviction states the amount, payment date, and that payment can be made to the Director (s 8(4)). The court also has the power to order a shorter payment period (s 7(2)) and to grant partial exemption under s 6. Courts are prohibited from taking the levy into account when determining sentence (s 5(7)), which prevents them from reducing the sentence to offset the levy.

Director, MPES: This office is central to the levy’s administration. It receives payments (s 8(1)), receives notice of liability (s 8(2)), and enforces unpaid levies as fines under the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 (s 9(1)). The Director bears the collection risk and enforcement costs.

Victims: Indirectly affected. The Act’s title and the reference to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1976 suggest that levy revenue funds the victims’ compensation scheme. However, the Act does not create a right for any victim to receive payment from the levy, nor does it specify how the money is to be allocated. Victims must look to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1976 for any direct entitlement.

Legal practitioners: Criminal defence lawyers, prosecutors, and duty solicitors need to understand that the levy is mandatory and cannot be factored into plea negotiations or sentencing submissions. They should advise clients about the obligation, especially when an offender faces multiple charges, as the cumulative levy could be significant. The absence of any discretion not to impose the levy distinguishes it from other financial penalties.

Regulation-makers: The Governor has power to make regulations for the purposes of the Act (s 11), and can prescribe additional offences to be included as “serious offences” under s 3(g), as well as prescribe increased levy amounts (ss 5(3), 6(1)). This means the levy’s scope and quantum can be expanded by regulation without primary legislation, subject to parliamentary oversight.

Duty to pay compensation levy: The core duty is in s 5(1): a person convicted of a serious offence must pay the levy to the Crown. Liability is automatic upon conviction; there is no provision for waiver except the court-ordered reduction under s 6 or the youth exemptions in s 5(2). The levy is due within the time set under s 7: generally 28 days after release from prison or sentencing, unless the court orders a shorter period.

Court’s duty to record and notify: The convicting court must enter the levy liability in the record of conviction and sentence (s 5(4)) and give notice of the liability, the amount, and any associated orders to the Director, MPES (s 8(2)). The notice of conviction provided to the offender must state the liability, amount, due date, and that payment may be made to the Director (s 8(4)(a)-(d)). This ensures the offender is aware of the obligation.

Right to apply for hardship reduction: Under s 6, if a person is convicted at the same time of more than one serious offence and the total levy exceeds the combined limit ($500 or greater prescribed amount), and the court is satisfied that paying the total would cause financial hardship, the court may order that the total levy be reduced to the combined limit or to a higher amount the court considers reasonable. This right is conditional: it only applies when multiple convictions occur at the same time, not to a single conviction. It also requires the offender to demonstrate financial hardship, which the court assesses having regard to such matters as it considers appropriate. The reduction is discretionary; the court may also order no reduction at all if not satisfied.

Prohibition on lowering sentence to offset levy: Section 5(7) prohibits the court from taking the levy liability into account in determining sentence for the serious offence. This means the levy is a pure add-on: the sentence is determined as if the levy did not exist, and the levy is imposed on top. This prevents offenders from arguing that the levy should reduce an otherwise longer prison term or higher fine.

Director’s duty to enforce: The Director, MPES is obliged to enforce unpaid levies as fines under the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 (s 9(1)). This enforcement regime includes the power to issue enforcement orders, garnish wages, seize assets, suspend licences, and in some cases impose further sanctions. The Director has no discretion to cancel or waive the levy; enforcement is mandatory once the levy is unpaid.

Regulation-making power: The Governor may make regulations for the purposes of the Act (s 11). This includes prescribing additional offences (s 3(g)), increasing levy amounts (ss 5(3), 6(1)), and possibly prescribing other matters. This delegated power means the substantive burden of the levy can be increased without amending the Act itself.

The Act itself does not create a separate penalty for failing to pay the levy. Instead, s 9(1) provides that a compensation levy may be enforced as a fine under the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005. That Act contains an extensive enforcement framework that includes the following mechanisms (derived from the referenced Act, not the source): the Director may issue an enforcement order requiring payment within a specified time; if not paid, the Director may take action such as deductions from wages or salary, garnishment of bank accounts, registration of a charge on property, suspension of driver or vehicle licences, or, in the last resort, imprisonment for default. Because the levy is treated as a fine, it is subject to the same collection and enforcement powers as any court-imposed fine.

The Act does not provide for interest or late payment fees on unpaid levies, though the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act may include such provisions. The enforcement regime also allows for the levy to be paid by instalments, but again that is a matter for the Director under the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act, not this Act.

For the enforcement regime to operate, the court must give notice of the liability to the Director, MPES (s 8(2)). Without notice, enforcement cannot begin. If the notice is not given, there is no express penalty on the court for failure, but the Director would not be able to enforce, rendering the levy uncollectable.

The Act also contains a transitional validation provision in s 9(2), which retroactively validates enforcement actions taken between 1 August 1998 and the commencement of the Justice Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2000, provided they were done in a manner consistent with s 47 of the Sentencing Act 1997. This suggests that during that period there was some uncertainty about enforcement method, and the provision cures that uncertainty.

Because the levy is additional to any other penalty (s 5(6)), non-payment of the levy does not relieve the offender of other penalties such as fines, imprisonment, or compensation orders. However, if the levy is enforced in a manner that leads to imprisonment for default, the offender may serve time for non-payment of the levy in addition to any other sentence, though the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act likely limits cumulative imprisonment.

The practical penalty for non-payment is exposure to the full suite of MPES enforcement actions. Given the relatively small amounts involved (typically $20 or $50 per conviction), the most common enforcement actions are likely licence suspension and deduction orders, which can be disproportionately burdensome for low-income offenders who need a driver licence for work.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1976: Section 10 of the Act simply states that Act’s citation without any operative provision. The only interaction is contextual: the levy presumably funds or supports the compensation scheme under that Act, but the Act does not create any direct linkage. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1976 would govern eligibility for and amount of compensation to victims. The levy is not a condition precedent for a victim to claim compensation, and the offender’s payment of the levy does not reduce any compensation order made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005: This is the enforcement vehicle. Section 9(1) of the Act makes the levy enforceable as a fine under that Act. The Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act provides the Director, MPES with enforcement powers, and it is to that Act that practitioners must look for the detailed enforcement procedures, such as enforcement orders, recovery methods, and the process for dealing with default. The Act does not incorporate any aspect of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act beyond the enforcement provision.

Sentencing Act 1997: Although not directly referred to in the substantive sections, the Act was originally enacted against the backdrop of the Sentencing Act. Section 9(2) references s 47 of the Sentencing Act 1997, which dealt with enforcement of financial penalties. That reference is historical and transitional. The Sentencing Act may also interact in that the levy is considered part of the overall financial penalty for sentencing purposes, but s 5(7) of the Act expressly prohibits the court from taking the levy into account in determining the sentence for the serious offence. This overrides any general sentencing discretion. Additionally, the Sentencing Act may have provisions about multiple penalties and their interaction, but the Act states that the levy is additional (s 5(6)), unaffected by any other penalty.

Criminal Code: The definition of “serious offence” includes all Criminal Code offences (s 3(a)). This is broad and includes both indictable and summary code offences. Practitioners must check the Criminal Code to determine whether a particular conduct is captured.

Other specified Acts: The definition of “serious offence” sweeps in offences under the Firearms Act 1996, Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, Poisons Act 1971, Police Offences Act 1935, Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, Marine Safety (Misuse of Alcohol) Act 2006, Traffic Act 1925, and Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999. This means that many regulatory and summary offences are covered, not just serious criminal matters. The interaction is straightforward: conviction under any of those Acts triggers the levy, provided the person is not a youth. There is no provision for double counting if the same conduct offends multiple Acts; each conviction attracts a separate levy (s 5(5)).

Administrative Arrangements Act 1990: Section 12 provides for the administration of the Act to be assigned to the Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice until an order under s 4 of the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990 is made. This is an administrative interaction only, affecting which minister and department are responsible.

Based on the annotations in the source text, the Act has been amended by multiple instruments. No comprehensive list is included, but the visible amendments are:

• No. 59 of 1997 (applied 1 August 1998): Amended s 3 to add definitions and update cross-references. Also amended s 4 (deleting paragraph (b) and (c) text), s 5(3) to increase levy amounts, s 8(2) to remove subparagraphs (a) and (b), and s 9.

• No. 49 of 1999 (applied 1 February 2000): Amended s 3 (add “compensation levy” definition?), s 5(2) to update youth exemption.

• No. 90 of 1999 (applied 14 August 2000): Amended s 3 to widen the “serious offence” definition to include specific Traffic Act offences and Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999.

• No. 62 of 2000 (applied 14 November 2000, though s 9 substituted applied from 1 August 1998): Substituted s 9 to change enforcement provisions and add transitional validation.

• No. 95 of 2001 (applied 1 June 2002): Amended s 3 to add Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 and Poisons Act 1971 to the definition of “serious offence”.

• No. 25 of 2006 (applied 23 December 2006): Amended s 3 to add an offence under the Marine Safety (Misuse of Alcohol) Act 2006.

• No. 6 of 2008 (applied 28 April 2008): Amended s 3 (definition of Director, MPES), s 7 (payment timing), s 8 (payment to Director, MPES), and s 9 (enforcement). Substituted the enforcement framework to refer to the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005.

• No. 27 of 2013 (applied 1 March 2014): Amended s 5(2) to update the youth exemption reference (likely to reflect the Magistrates Court (Youth Justice Division) name change).

• No. 29 of 2017 (applied 5 September 2017): Substituted s 7 to restructure payment timing, distinguishing between imprisonment not wholly suspended and other cases. This replaced the previous s 7.

The cumulative effect of these amendments has been to broaden the scope of “serious offence” (adding drug, traffic, and marine safety offences) and to centralise enforcement under the MPES regime. The levy amounts have remained at $20 and $50 minimums, suggesting they have not been increased by regulation.

The source text contains no references to any litigation or court decisions concerning the Act. This may indicate that the Act has generated little judicial attention. Possible reasons: the levy amounts are small, so the incentive to challenge is low; the mandatory nature of the levy reduces scope for legal argument; and the hardship reduction provision provides an administrative remedy that avoids litigation. However, the absence of cited cases does not definitively mean no litigation has occurred; the annotation may simply not include case references. The Act is not likely to have been the subject of appellate decisions reported in the source, but there may be unreported magistrates court applications under s 6. The interaction with the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act could lead to enforcement-related litigation, but that would concern the enforcement Act, not this one.

Given the source leaves it blank, the analyst must note the absence and cannot invent litigation. This is a low-litigation statute consistent with its mechanical nature.

Expansive definition of “convicted”: Section 4(c) includes a finding of guilt without proceeding to conviction. This means an offender who receives a dismissal, a good behaviour bond, or a conditional discharge without a recorded conviction under other sentencing provisions is still liable for the levy. This can be a surprise for defendants and their lawyers who might believe that “no conviction” means no financial penalty. Similarly, s 4(d) includes offences taken into account (TIAs) by the court when sentencing for another serious offence. The offender may not have been charged with those TIAs, yet they attract a separate levy. This can dramatically increase the levy amount in cases where multiple TIAs are present, and the s 6 hardship reduction may not apply if the total levy does not exceed $500 from those TIAs alone.

Levy per offence: Section 5(5) provides that if a person is convicted at the same time of more than one serious offence, a levy is payable for each conviction. This can add up quickly. For example, three property offences under the Criminal Code and two drug offences at the same hearing would attract five levies of $20 each in the Magistrates Court, totalling $100. While that is below the combined limit, it is a non-trivial sum for a low-income offender.

Combined limit threshold: The hardship reduction under s 6 only applies if the total levy exceeds the combined limit ($500). This means that an offender convicted of a large number of low-level offences (e.g., ten drug possession charges at $20 each = $200) would not qualify even if they suffer hardship, because the total does not exceed $500. Only those with many convictions or convictions in the Supreme Court (where the per-offence amount is higher) are eligible. The $500 threshold is quite high relative to the per-offence amount, so only offenders with many convictions or Supreme Court matters can access this relief. This design concentrates the benefit on offenders who commit multiple or more serious offences, which may seem perverse.

No reduction for single conviction: The s 6 hardship reduction is only available when a person is convicted at the same time of more than one serious offence. An offender with a single serious conviction, even if very poor and suffering severe financial hardship, has no right to any reduction. This creates a rigid rule that can be harsh.

Levy not considered in sentencing: Section 5(7) prohibits the court from reducing a sentence to account for the levy. This means a judge or magistrate cannot give a discount on imprisonment or a fine to offset the levy. For an offender who is already subject to a heavy fine, the levy is an added burden that cannot be mitigated in any sentencing decision. The only recourse is the limited hardship provision in s 6, which applies only to multiple convictions.

Payment timing trap: Under s 7(1)(a), if the person is sentenced to imprisonment that is not wholly suspended, the levy is due within 28 days after release from prison. The offender may be released after many years and be unaware of the outstanding levy, especially if the notification at the time of conviction is forgotten. The 28-day clock starts ticking from release, and if the offender does not have a stable address or income, they may miss the deadline and become subject to MPES enforcement without warning.

Potential for double liability with compensation orders: While s 5(6) says the levy is additional to any order for payment of compensation, there is no express provision preventing the same conduct from giving rise to both a compensation order under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and a levy under this Act. The levy is a payment to the Crown; compensation orders are payments to victims. Both can be imposed, potentially leaving the offender with a significant total financial burden.

Youth exemption not absolute: Section 5(2) exempts persons convicted in the Magistrates Court (Youth Justice Division) or convicted by the Supreme Court of an offence committed before turning 18. However, it does not exempt persons convicted in the Magistrates Court (adult division) for an offence committed while under 18, if the matter was not heard in the Youth Justice Division. This could catch young offenders who are tried as adults in some circumstances.

Regulation power: The Governor can prescribe additional serious offences (s 3(g)) and increase levy amounts (ss 5(3), 6(1)). Practitioners need to monitor regulations to stay current. There may be prescribed amounts higher than the base $20/$50 that are in force but not visible in the Act itself.

For the convicted person: The levy is mandatory. The best approach is to pay within the required timeframe: either within 28 days after release from prison (if sentenced to unsuspended imprisonment) or within 28 days after sentencing (if no imprisonment or wholly suspended). Payment should be made to the Director, MPES: details should be on the notice of conviction. If the levy is unaffordable and the person has multiple convictions exceeding $500, they should immediately seek the assistance of a legal practitioner to apply for a hardship reduction under s 6. That application must be made at the time of conviction or as soon as possible; it is unclear whether a court can grant a reduction after the 28-day payment period has expired, but it is best to raise it during the sentencing hearing.

For legal practitioners: Advise clients before the sentencing hearing that a levy will be imposed. For clients facing multiple charges, calculate the total levy and assess whether it exceeds $500. If so, be prepared to make submissions on financial hardship and to request the court to exercise its discretion under s 6. Gather evidence of hardship (income, assets, dependents, debts). Note that the court cannot reduce the levy below the combined limit ($500) unless it considers a higher amount reasonable; the floor is $500. Practitioners should also ensure the court records the levy and gives proper notice to the Director, MPES, as the client may need proof of payment later.

For the court: At sentencing, the court must enter the levy liability in the record of conviction (s 5(4)). The court must give notice of the liability, amount, and any associated orders to the Director, MPES (s 8(2)). The notice provided to the offender must state the liability, amount, due date, and that payment may be made to the Director (s 8(4)). The court must not take the levy into account in determining the sentence (s 5(7)). If multiple convictions arise and the total levy exceeds $500, the court may need to hear submissions on hardship and, if satisfied, order a reduction. The court can also order a shorter payment period than 28 days if it wishes (s 7(2)).

For the Director, MPES: Upon receiving notice under s 8(2), the Director should record the levy as a debt enforceable under the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005. If payment is not received within the due date, the Director may apply that Act’s enforcement mechanisms. There is no limitation period expressed in the Act for enforcement, but the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act may have its own.

For administrators: The Department of Justice is responsible for the Act’s administration until an order under s 4 of the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990 changes that (s 12). This may affect the distribution of levy funds to the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme. The Department should ensure that levy payments are properly recorded, accounted for, and transferred to the correct account or body under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1976.

Regulatory compliance: The Governor may make regulations (s 11). Practitioners should check whether any regulations are in force that prescribe additional offences or increase the levy amounts. The prescribed amount under ss 5(3) and 6(1) may be higher than the nominal $20 or $50, so the actual levy could be greater. Checking the current legislative database is essential.