Victims of Crime (Fund and Levy) Regulations 2018

Key concepts are defined and imported from other statutes, and the regulations operate by cross-reference to those external meanings. Regulation 3 provides the local definitions used by the instrument: Act means the Victims of Crime Act 2001, and youth has the same meaning as in the Young Offenders Act 1993. The regulations therefore defer the operational definition of a youth to that separate statute (r 3). The concept of an expiation notice is used throughout but not redefined in the regulations; references to expiation notices and enforcement determinations point to the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 (see r 5(1) and r 5(2)).

Two different monetary mechanisms are established. First, r 4 prescribes a proportion: 20 per cent of the aggregate amount paid into General Revenue by way of fines is to be paid into the Victims of Crime Fund, for the purposes of s 30(3) of the Act. That is an aggregate, budgetary transfer rule rather than a per-transaction levy. Second, r 5 and Schedule 1 implement a per-offence levy that attaches to persons who expiate offences by way of an expiation notice or through the consequence of conviction or equivalent. Schedule 1 distinguishes summary offences and indictable offences and creates a special category for offences listed in clause 2 which attract a doubled levy.

Schedule 1 also creates alternative amounts depending on whether the expiation was “without the making of an enforcement determination under section 22 of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 in relation to the expiation notice” (Schedule 1 cl 1(a)(i)). The schedule contrasts that situation with “any other case” (Schedule 1 cl 1(a)(ii)), which captures cases where an enforcement determination under s 22 has been made or other non-expiation events apply. Clause 3 of the Schedule then imposes distinct, substantially lower levy amounts where the offender is a youth, again differentiating by whether an enforcement determination under s 22 was made.

Exemptions appear as a categorical carve-out: reg 5(1) provides that a levy is not imposed on a person who expiates an offence under an expiation notice if the notice is issued by a council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1999 or an authority with local government powers (r 5(1)(a)), by a university or other tertiary educational institution established by an Act (r 5(1)(b)), by an incorporated hospital within the meaning of the Health Care Act 2008 (r 5(1)(c)), by the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science (r 5(1)(d)), or by the Board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium (r 5(1)(e)). That is a targeted set of institutional issuer exemptions; the list is closed by the text and does not assert other exemptions.

Finally, the regulations make clear that they are subordinate to and operate in relation to other legislation: they explicitly rely on the Victims of Crime Act 2001 for the enabling sections in ss 30 and 32 (see r 4 and r 5), on the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 for the concept of an enforcement determination and the special status created by s 22(4) (r 5(1) and r 5(2)), on the Young Offenders Act 1993 for the definition of youth (r 3), and on a number of substantive criminal statutes listed in Schedule 1 cl 2 to identify offences that attract the doubled levy. The regulatory architecture is therefore one of monetary specification and cross-referencing to substantive and enforcement statutes elsewhere.

The regulations establish financial obligations that fall primarily on persons who pay or “expiate” offences by way of expiation notices, subject to the statutory and regulatory carve-outs. Regulation 5(1) states in plain terms that a levy is not imposed on a person who expiates an offence under an expiation notice issued by particular authorities: councils as defined in the Local Government Act 1999 and equivalent local government authorities (r 5(1)(a)), universities and other tertiary institutions established by an Act (r 5(1)(b)), incorporated hospitals as defined in the Health Care Act 2008 (r 5(1)(c)), the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science (r 5(1)(d)) and the Board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium (r 5(1)(e)). All other persons who expiate will generally face the levy set out in Schedule 1, unless they are “a person who, for the purposes of any Act or law, is taken to have expiated an offence by virtue of the operation of section 22(4) of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017” , such persons are excluded from the meaning of “a person who expiates” for the purpose of reg 5(1) (r 5(2)).

The schedule differentiates affected persons according to offence type and age-status. For adults, the levy amounts are: summary offences $105 where expiated without an enforcement determination under s 22 of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017, and $278 “in any other case” (Schedule 1 cl 1(a)); indictable offences attract $451 (Schedule 1 cl 1(b)). Some offences listed in Schedule 1 cl 2 attract a levy that is twice the amount that would otherwise be payable. For youths (as defined by the Young Offenders Act 1993 and adopted by r 3), Schedule 1 cl 3 sets lower amounts: for summary offences not in the doubled list, $20 if expiated without an enforcement determination and $40 in other cases (Schedule 1 cl 3(a)(i)-(ii)); indictable offences (other than those in the doubled list) attract $60 (Schedule 1 cl 3(b)); offences in the doubled list attract $100 (Schedule 1 cl 3(c)).

Institutions that issue expiation notices listed in r 5(1) are not themselves the payers; the exemption operates to relieve persons who receive such notices from the levy. Agencies and bodies that enforce fines, collect expiation payments, and manage revenue flows are affected administratively: they must apply the correct levy amounts, identify exempt issuers, distinguish youth from adult offenders using the Young Offenders Act 1993 definition, determine whether an enforcement determination under s 22 of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 has been made, and, separately, calculate and transfer 20 per cent of aggregate fine receipts into the Victims of Crime Fund (r 4). The Treasurer or agency accountable for General Revenue accounting will be implicated by r 4’s aggregate transfer rule because it requires identifying the aggregate amount paid into General Revenue “by way of fines” and forwarding 20 per cent to the Fund.

Finally, government budget officers and administrators are affected because the regulations alter the allocation of fine-derived revenues within public accounts. The 20 per cent prescription in r 4 diverts a defined share of fine proceeds from General Revenue into the Victims of Crime Fund; the regulations therefore change the flow of public money even though they do not themselves specify the spending rules for that Fund.

The regulations impose three principal duties and create a narrow set of rights.

Duties

• Levy obligation on persons who expiate offences: Regulation 5, read with Schedule 1, operates to impose a victims of crime levy on a person who expiates an offence under an expiation notice, except where an exemption listed in r 5(1) applies, and subject to the exclusion in r 5(2). The quantum of the levy is fixed by Schedule 1 (r 5(3)). The duty to pay is outcome-focused: if a person expiates an offence and no exemption (or exclusion) applies, the levy amount in Schedule 1 is payable.
• Accurate classification and calculation: agencies and officials responsible for issuing expiation notices, processing payments and maintaining revenue accounts have a duty to classify offences correctly as summary or indictable, to identify whether the offence appears in Schedule 1 cl 2 (which triggers the doubling rule), to determine whether the offender is a youth (r 3), and to ascertain whether the expiation was processed “without the making of an enforcement determination under section 22 of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017” or whether “any other case” applies (Schedule 1 cl 1 and cl 3). These factual determinations directly determine the levy amount.
• Financial allocation duty: the regulations prescribe that 20 per cent of the aggregate amount paid into General Revenue by way of fines is to be paid into the Victims of Crime Fund (r 4). That creates a duty on the statutory or administrative actor with custody and control of General Revenue fine receipts to calculate the aggregate and transfer the prescribed proportion to the Fund, for the purpose of s 30(3) of the Act.

Rights

• Exemption right for persons receiving expiation notices from listed issuers: r 5(1) removes the levy obligation for persons who expiate offences under notices issued by the institutions listed in that subregulation. This operates as a right not to be charged the victims of crime levy in those factual circumstances.
• Distinct youth pricing: Schedule 1 cl 3 creates an explicit right to pay the lower youth levy where the offender is a person who meets the definition of youth in the Young Offenders Act 1993, as adopted by r 3.

The regulations do not specify appeals, dispute resolution pathways, or alternative dispute mechanisms in relation to the levy amounts or the 20 per cent transfer. They also do not set out timelines, accounting procedures or reporting obligations for the transfer of the 20 per cent from General Revenue to the Victims of Crime Fund; these operational matters are left to administrative practice or to the principal Act and other interacting legislation. Nor do the regulations create separate criminal penalties for failing to pay the levy; enforcement and penalties for non-payment are matters that remain with the enabling statutes (the Victims of Crime Act 2001 and the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017) as referenced by the regulations.

The regulations themselves do not create novel criminal offences or detailed enforcement mechanisms for non-payment of the levy. The text confines itself to prescribing amounts and exemptions. Regulation 5 fixes levy amounts for the purposes of section 32 of the Victims of Crime Act 2001 and directs that the levy is not imposed in specified expiation circumstances. Schedule 1 fixes dollar amounts and doubling rules. There is no provision within these regulations that states a penalty for failing to pay the levy or that describes the enforcement steps to be taken if a levy remains unpaid.

Because the regulations operate “for the purposes of” sections of the Victims of Crime Act 2001 (r 4 for s 30(3); r 5 for s 32), enforcement and penalty mechanisms should be sought in the principal Act and in other statutes referenced by the regulations. The regulations refer specifically to the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 in relation to enforcement determinations (r 5(1) and (2) and Schedule 1), which suggests that the procedural and enforcement architecture for fine collection, enforcement determinations, and the consequences of non-payment are dealt with in that Act. The regulations thereby rely on external enforcement regimes rather than restating or modifying them.

Operational enforcement therefore depends on three interlocking sources: the Victims of Crime Act 2001 for the power to impose the levy (as implemented by these regulations), the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 for the procedural and enforcement context of expiation notices and enforcement determinations, and ordinary fine-collection practice as administered by the relevant agencies. The regulations supply the prescribed quantum and exemptions, but they do not specify penalties, timeframes for payment, recovery steps or judicial processes for disputes about the levy amounts. Agencies responsible for debt recovery and revenue collection will need to apply the enforcement provisions found in the principal Act and the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 when handling non-payment.

The regulations are explicitly interwoven with several other statutes; they operate by reference to statutory definitions, procedural provisions and substantive offence lists found outside the instrument. The text itself identifies these cross-references.

• Victims of Crime Act 2001: The regulations operate under this Act and implement specific provisions. Regulation 4 states that it prescribes the proportion for the purposes of s 30(3) of the Act. Regulation 5 is made for the purposes of s 32 of the Act and Schedule 1 fixes the levy amount for the purposes of s 32(4). Hence the regulations are subordinate to and dependent on the Victims of Crime Act 2001 for their legal effect.

• Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017: The regulations rely on the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 in two ways. First, they distinguish expiations “without the making of an enforcement determination under section 22” from “any other case” in Schedule 1 cl 1(a)(i)-(ii), which affects the levy quantum. Second, reg 5(2) clarifies that the phrase “a person who expiates an offence under an expiation notice” does not include a person who is, for the purposes of any Act or law, taken to have expiated by virtue of s 22(4) of that Act. Thus the Fines Enforcement Act’s definitions and decision points are decisive for levy application.

• Young Offenders Act 1993: Regulation 3 imports the definition of youth by stating that youth has the same meaning as in the Young Offenders Act 1993. Schedule 1 cl 3 then sets different levy amounts for offenders who are youths. The operational age threshold and criteria that determine youth status must therefore be taken from the Young Offenders Act 1993.

• Local Government Act 1999, Health Care Act 2008, and tertiary education Acts: Regulation 5(1) creates exemptions from the levy where the expiation notice is issued by specified institutional issuers. The council meaning is drawn from the Local Government Act 1999, incorporated hospital is defined in the Health Care Act 2008, and colleges/universities are those “established by an Act”. The net effect is that the administrative identity of the issuer, as determined by these other statutes, determines exemption entitlement.

• Substantive criminal statutes named in Schedule 1 cl 2: The list of offences that attract double levies draws on a range of criminal statutes. Schedule 1 cl 2(a) references the Aircraft Offences Act 1971. Clause 2(b) lists multiple parts and sections of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (various Parts and specific sections), clause 2(c) refers to an offence against s 6 of the Summary Offences Act 1953, and clause 2(b)(iii) specifically names robbery and aggravated robbery. The effect is that the substantive characterisation of offences under these laws will determine whether the doubled levy applies.

Collectively, these cross-references mean that the levy regime is not self-contained; its correct operation requires consultation of and factual alignment with the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 (for enforcement determinations and s 22(4) consequences), the Young Offenders Act 1993 (for youth status), the Local Government Act 1999 and Health Care Act 2008 (for issuer identity), and the various criminal statutes (for doubling triggers). The regulations therefore function as an integrating instrument that translates statutory categories and enforcement events into fixed monetary outcomes.

The legislative history provided in the regulations records the commencement of the principal regulations and subsequent variations, and notes the revocation of the predecessor instrument. The Victims of Crime (Fund and Levy) Regulations 2018 (No 188 of 2018) commenced on 19 July 2018 (Gazette 19.7.2018 p 2883; see the table under Principal regulations and variations). The 2018 regulations revoked the Victims of Crime (Fund and Levy) Regulations 2003, as stated under “Legislation revoked by principal regulations.”

The regulatory schedule records multiple subsequent variations and amendments with commencement dates, showing that Schedule 1 and other provisions have been varied on several occasions:

• 2020, No 296 (Gazette 19.11.2020 p 5083) commenced 1 January 2021 and is noted as having varied Schedule 1 (Sch 1) by r 4(1),(3).
• 2021, No 67 (Gazette 3.6.2021 p 1844) varied Schedule 1 and commenced 1 July 2021.
• 2021, No 184 (Gazette 9.12.2021 p 4339) is noted as varied by r 4 and commenced 31 January 2023.
• 2022, No 35 (Gazette 10.6.2022 p 1509) amended Sch 1 and commenced 1 July 2022.
• 2023, No 44 (Gazette 18.5.2023 p 1046) amended Sch 1 and commenced 1 July 2023.
• 2024, No 29 (Gazette 16.5.2024 p 869) amended Sch 1 and commenced 1 July 2024.
• 2025, No 25 (Gazette 15.5.2025 p 1184) amended Sch 1 and commenced 1 July 2025.

The entry “Provisions varied” indicates that r 2 was omitted under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 (commencement 1 January 2021), and that Schedule 1 was repeatedly varied by the instruments listed above. The legislative history also records that Schedule 2 was omitted under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 (commencement 1 January 2021). Historical consolidated versions of the regulations are listed for several dates (1.1.2021, 1.7.2021, 1.7.2022, 31.1.2023, 1.7.2023 and 1.7.2024), indicating that the text of the regulations and the Schedule have been updated during those revision points.

The recorded amendment entries show that Schedule 1 , the operative schedule fixing levy amounts , has been the principal focus of modification across several instruments and years. That indicates that the dollar amounts and potentially the categorisation of offences have been periodically adjusted by statutory instrument. The legislative history is self-contained to these entries; the regulations themselves do not provide explanatory memoranda or reasons for each variation within the text supplied here.

The text of the regulations in the materials provided contains no references to litigation, judicial decisions, or case law that has interpreted these regulations. The instrument lists its own legislative history and variation instruments but does not name any judicial authorities or reported judicial decisions. Therefore, based solely on the content before us, there is no litigation history recorded in the regulations themselves.

Practitioners seeking case law should note that the regulations operate in close relation to the Victims of Crime Act 2001 and the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017, among other statutes. Any judicial interpretation concerning the levy, the 20 per cent allocation to the Fund, the application of exemptions in r 5(1), the operation of s 22(4) of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 in relation to levy liability, or classification questions under Schedule 1 is likely to arise in decisions construing those statutory instruments or in appeals involving fine enforcement. However, no such decisions are cited in the regulations’ legislative history provided in this text.

The instrument contains several technical features and cross-statute dependencies that create practical traps for administrators, payers and advisers if they are not carefully addressed.

• Aggregate proportion versus per-levy amounts: Regulation 4 prescribes 20 per cent of the aggregate amount paid into General Revenue by way of fines to be paid into the Victims of Crime Fund. That is an accounting rule that applies to aggregate fine receipts, not a per-transaction apportionment. Agencies therefore must be clear which amounts are “paid into General Revenue by way of fines,” how aggregation is calculated and over what period the transfer to the Fund is to be performed. The regulation is silent on periodicity, aggregation windows, rounding or accounting classifications, which creates room for administrative variability.

• Exemption tied to issuer identity: The levy exemption in r 5(1) applies where the expiation notice is issued by specified institutions. The exemption depends on the identity of the issuer, not the underlying nature of the offence. If an expiation notice is issued by an entity that is arguably a council, incorporated hospital or a State-established tertiary institution, the issuer must be correctly classified under the relevant Acts cited (Local Government Act 1999; Health Care Act 2008; tertiary Acts) for the exemption to apply. Misclassification of the issuer can produce erroneous levy application.

• Fines Enforcement Act interactions change levy outcome: Schedule 1 draws a square distinction between expiations “without the making of an enforcement determination under section 22 of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017” and “any other case.” Practically, an enforcement determination under s 22 can shift the levy from the lower to the higher amount. Agencies must therefore record whether an enforcement determination was made under s 22 for each expiation notice to determine the correct levy amount. Moreover, reg 5(2) excludes persons taken to have expiated by virtue of s 22(4) from the meaning of “a person who expiates” under r 5(1). That is a technical point: persons who are deemed to have expiated for the purposes of any Act or law, by operation of s 22(4), may be excluded from the ordinary levy rules and treated differently.

• Doubling rule complexity: Schedule 1 cl 2 lists multiple offences and statutory locations that attract a levy equal to twice the standard amount. That list invokes the Aircraft Offences Act 1971 and numerous Parts and sections of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, plus an offence under s 6 of the Summary Offences Act 1953. Correct application therefore requires mapping a charged or expiated offence onto the entries in the list; subtle differences in the statutory charge wording may change whether the double-rate applies. Administrative staff must have accurate offence classification protocols.

• Youth definition defers to another Act: The regulations adopt the definition of youth from the Young Offenders Act 1993 (r 3). Users must consult that Act to determine whether a particular offender qualifies as a youth for the purposes of the reduced Schedule 1 amounts. Reliance on two instruments increases the potential for mistakes about age thresholds, custody-status, or other qualifying criteria.

• Absence of payment timing and enforcement detail: The regulations fix amounts but are silent on timeframes for payment of the levy, notice requirements specific to the levy, or the steps taken when a levy remains unpaid. Those details will be governed by other statutes and by administrative procedures; nevertheless, a naive reading of the regulations might lead an administrator to assume the levy is self-executing without recognising the need to coordinate with the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 processes.

• Repeated amendment history: Schedule 1 has been varied many times (see the amendment history). That creates a requirement to maintain up-to-date schedules and to apply the version of the schedule that was in force at the relevant time for retrospective or transitional cases.

• Ambiguity about who bears the administrative cost: The regulations do not address who bears the administrative cost of collecting, accounting for and transferring the 20 per cent to the Victims of Crime Fund. That cost will be borne by whichever agency performs the collection and accounting and may not be reimbursed out of the Fund. The regulations therefore reallocate revenue but do not allocate administrative funding for the reallocation process.

For administrators, collecting agencies and advisers, compliance requires a set of discrete steps that map the factual circumstance to the regulatory categories.

1. Determine whether the vehicle for liability is an expiation notice or another enforcement process. If an expiation notice is involved, identify the issuer of the notice because reg 5(1) creates exemptions tied to issuer identity. If the issuer is a council (as defined by the Local Government Act 1999), an authority with local government powers, a university or other tertiary educational institution established by an Act, an incorporated hospital under the Health Care Act 2008, the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, or the Board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium, then the levy is not imposed on the person who expiates (r 5(1)). Maintain documentation of the issuer’s institutional status to support exemption decisions.

2. If the issuer is not within the exemptions listed in r 5(1), establish whether the person who is to be charged the levy is “a person who, for the purposes of any Act or law, is taken to have expiated an offence by virtue of the operation of section 22(4) of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017.” If s 22(4) has this effect for the person, r 5(2) excludes them from the ordinary “person who expiates” meaning and the usual levy-imposition step may not apply. Agencies must therefore record whether s 22(4) has been invoked and retain the legal basis for any exclusion.

3. Identify whether the offender is a youth by applying the definition of youth in the Young Offenders Act 1993 (r 3). This is a legal determination that requires consulting the Young Offenders Act 1993 to confirm age and any qualifying conditions that render the lower youth levy applicable.

4. Classify the offence as a summary offence or an indictable offence and determine whether the offence appears in the list in Schedule 1 cl 2. The classification will determine the base levy and whether a doubling rule applies. Keep contemporary copies of Schedule 1 and prior versions for cases straddling amendment dates.

5. Check whether an enforcement determination under s 22 of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 was made in relation to the expiation notice. Schedule 1 differentiates amounts where the expiation was processed “without the making of an enforcement determination under section 22” and “in any other case.” The existence or absence of an enforcement determination therefore changes the levy quantum for summary offences (and for youth summary offences under cl 3).

6. Apply the correct dollar amount from Schedule 1:

   • Adult summary offence: $105 if expiated without a s 22 enforcement determination; $278 in any other case (Schedule 1 cl 1(a)).
   • Adult indictable offence: $451 (Schedule 1 cl 1(b)).
   • Offences listed in cl 2: levy is twice the otherwise applicable amount (Schedule 1 cl 2).
   • Youth summary offence: $20 if expiated without s 22 enforcement determination; $40 in other cases (Schedule 1 cl 3(a)).
   • Youth indictable offence (other than those in cl 2): $60 (Schedule 1 cl 3(b)).
   • Youth offence listed in cl 2: $100 (Schedule 1 cl 3(c)).

7. Assess whether the levy amount is to be included in the expiation amount payable by the person or whether it is to be handled separately. The regulations fix the amount “in respect of” a summary or indictable offence for the purposes of the Act, and r 5(1) describes the levy as being “imposed on a person who expiates an offence under an expiation notice.” In practice, collect the levy in conjunction with collection of the expiation payment or apply the levy in accordance with the administrative practice under the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017.

8. Maintain clear accounting for fine receipts that are “paid into General Revenue by way of fines” so that the required transfer of 20 per cent to the Victims of Crime Fund under r 4 can be calculated and executed. The regulations do not specify frequency or technical accounting rules for the 20 per cent transfer, so implement internal procedures that identify the aggregation window (monthly, quarterly or yearly), capture the universe of receipts that qualify as “by way of fines,” and produce auditable calculations to support the transfer. Ensure separation of duties and retention of supporting records in case of audit queries.

9. Update processes to reflect amendments. Schedule 1 has been varied multiple times, as recorded in the legislative history. Ensure that collection systems, notice templates, accounting codes and training materials reflect the current schedule in force on the date of each expiation or conviction. For cases that straddle amendment dates, apply the schedule in force at the relevant date in accordance with transitional rules in the enabling statute or administrative guidance, if any.

10. Document decisions on exemptions, classification, s 22 determinations, youth status and accounting transfers. Because the regulations create liability and revenue flows but do not set out dispute procedures or enforcement steps, maintain a clear audit trail to support decisions that may later be examined under the Victims of Crime Act 2001, the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017, or in administrative reviews.

Following these steps aligns practical operational procedures to the requirements and cross-references expressed in the regulations. Where any uncertainty remains about definitions or enforcement steps, consult the relevant enabling or referenced legislation (Victims of Crime Act 2001; Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017; Young Offenders Act 1993; Local Government Act 1999; Health Care Act 2008; and the criminal statutes listed in Schedule 1) because those instruments supply the procedural and definitional content that the regulations rely upon.