*Chris thought he was doing the right thing.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Noticing a female being harassed outside a Bendigo pub in 2012, he intervened.
A scuffle ensued, the results of which Chris still carries with him to this day.
Stabbed four times, Chris suffered a partially severed spinal cord, resulting in neurological damage.
“I’ve got one good arm, that's about the extent of it. The shaking in my hand and leg is going to get worse as I get older,” said Chris, who consumed close to 140 tablets a week when he left hospital in Melbourne to manage his symptoms.
Unable to work since the horrific attack, Chris – a former mine worker – has been left frustrated at the lack of employment progress.
“They (Doctors) won’t let me work. I’d like to go back doing what I was doing – but that’s not going to happen,” he said.
Compounding the problem for the Bendigo man is, in his opinion, a distinct lack of state-government funded financial assistance.
In 2013, he was awarded $70,000 through the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal – $60,000 of which was the maximum assistance available for loss of earnings and medical expenses.
The remaining $10,000 is classified as Special Financial Assistance, which is the maximum payment a victim can get in recognition of the trauma they have experienced.
“I’ve got one good arm, that's about the extent of it. The shaking in my hand and leg is going to get worse as I get older
- *Chris, stabbing victim
Chris’ lawyers argue being awarded $10,000 is very rare.
Assaults can garner anywhere up to $650 in SFA, while more serious charges like rape and attempted murder are categorised in a higher claim bracket.
By his own admission, Chris’ money is drying up.
“It ($10,000) is not a lot for a lifelong injury – I've gone from earning an above average wage to $16,000 on a disability pension. It’s not right,” he said.
Suing the offender is rarely an option, given most have little or no assets.
As Arnold Dallas McPherson's Lachlan Singe explains, Chris would have been entitled to damages in the range of $1.2 million.
In his 12 years’ experience in the victims of crime field, Mr Singe has successfully recouped money from just one offender.
“It's not an option for almost everybody we see,” he said, with frustration etched on his face.
“There are other avenues for victims, but you better hope you're assaulted by someone with a heck of a lot of money.”
Mr Singe referenced a horrendous example of how he felt the tribunal was limited in the damages it could award a victim.
The local victim, a minor at the time, was subjected a number of traumatic acts, including sexual assault, over an 18-month period.
The 37 offences, which resulted in a sentence of 13 years, 10 months’ jail, were all considered a series of related acts under the current legislation, Mr Singe said, and as such were deemed as one single act by the tribunal when it came to compensation.
The victim was awarded $10,000, in addition to counselling and medical expenses.
Damages for pain and suffering were later pursued in the County Court, where an award of $275,000 was made against the offender.
This money was ultimately not recoverable from the culprit, as he had sold the property he owned to his parents for $1, and they in turn had disposed of it, according to Mr Singe.
“This young (person) will have to cope with being a victim of some of the most horrendous crimes imaginable for the rest of her life, and has only been directly compensated $10,000,” Mr Singe said.
“One of the main reasons I ran that (person’s) matter was the sheer horror she went through.”
Mr Singe and colleague Kirstie Lyons both argue the current SFA is insufficient, suggesting there has been no movement in the value of the award since 2007 – when the maximum amount was lifted from $7,500 –$10,000.
Additionally, they argue in the 1980s victims were entitled to a maximum of $20,000, which, given indexation, would be the equivalent of closer to $60,000 today.
Arnold Dallas McPherson principal John McPherson said the plea bargaining process, whereby prosecutors may offer reduced charges in order to expedite the justice procedure, could affect a victim’s VOCAT category and thus a person’s compensation entitlements.
“I don't think they (prosecutors) turn their mind to victims of crimes compensation - but i don't think they should,” he said, arguing the criminal justice was primarily geared around punishing offenders.
“It's like explaining to someone that you've had the snot beaten out of you and that's worth the princely sum of $650, which can be a very difficult thing for some people to take,” Mr Singe said.
VOCAT applications increasing
Between 2014 and 2016 in Bendigo, 246 applications were made to the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal – 67 per cent, or 167, of which resulted in ‘awards’ being made.
More broadly, in the Loddon Mallee Region from 2015-16, 70 per cent of the 318 applications received awards, which accounted for 5.4 per cent of the statewide award figure.
The Bendigo Advertiser asked VOCAT to provide a breakdown of local compensation figures, however it was unable to do so.
VOCAT principal registrar Rod Ratcliffe said the average award across the state for 2015-16 was $7784 and he suggested there was no reason to believe it would be any different in Bendigo.
Mr Ratcliffe said a primary victim may be awarded up to $60,000 plus any special financial assistance.
He said SFA is awarded by category of offence from $10,000 for rape and attempted murder down to $650 for assault.
Secondary victims (a person who witnesses an act of violence and is injured by it), he said, can get up to $50,000, but they have no SFA entitlement.
Related victims (close relatives of a person who has been murdered) may be awarded up to $50,000 but not exceeding $100,000 for all the related victims of one deceased, Mr Ratcliffe said.
The registrar said he believed that in 1980 the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1972 would have applied and the maximum payable would have been up to an aggregate of $7500.
Local, more simpler cases took on average around six months to determine, Ms Lyons said, but Chris’ case, given its “incredibly complicated” nature, took 18 months to get a hearing.
“I think it (compensation) should be a lot more across the board,” she said, adding the current situation wasn’t the fault of the police or the tribunal, more so the current legislation that directed them.
“There's not enough scope for tribunal members within the legislation to actually really recognise what some people have been through.
“A bit more discretion would create better outcomes for people.”
Victoria police and the Office of Public Prosecutions were becoming increasingly proactive in encouraging victims to seek compensation and restraining any assets offenders may have, Ms Lyons said.
“They have the ability to restrain an offenders assets for the purpose of satisfying an award under the Sentencing Act - it's something police are thinking a lot more about and making requests about before cases,” she said.
For advice on whether you are eligible for victims of crime compensation call Bendigo Magistrates' Court on (03) 5440 4140.
*Name has been changed to protect the victim.
VOCAT focus for reform authority
The state government is seeking advice on how to improve victims’ experiences with compensation.
Attorney-General Martin Pakula said the government has asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) to provide advice on ways to improve the experience of victims of crime who engage with the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT).
“As part of this review, the VLRC will consider a range of issues, including whether existing formulas for calculating awards are appropriate,” he said.
“We want to make sure that victims of crime can access state-funded assistance in a way that is fast and fair, and minimises any additional trauma.”
Some of the terms of reference for the VLRC include; whether the basis of the formula used to quantify special financial assistance is the most appropriate way to calculate the amount payable by the state for harm arising from crime.
The VLRC will also asses whether it is appropriate and fair to award assistance to aid recovery in exceptional circumstances and if there are other ways to promote the recovery of victims from the effects of crime.
The state government recently announced a $28.5 million package to support victims of crime, which is expected to increase the number of front line staff and support services for victims, witnesses and vulnerable children.
This package includes $6 million for the Victims of Crime Commissioner and $18.9 million for the Office of Public Prosecutions.