Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996: Report (html)

7. Assessment of victims’ needs and Victoria’s existing victims of crime financial assistance scheme

Introduction

7.1 The supplementary terms of reference ask the Commission to consider the operation and effectiveness of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) (VOCAA) and the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT) for all victims, including family violence victims, in achieving the purposes set out in section 1 of the VOCAA.^[1]

7.2 The supplementary terms of reference at matter eight ask the Commission to consider whether any processes, procedures or requirements under the VOCAA cause unnecessary delay to the provision of assistance to victims of crime. In considering this, the Commission is asked to consider whether there are other models that would more effectively deliver assistance, for example an administrative or quasi-administrative model.

7.3 In the Commission’s view, the question of other models raised in the supplementary terms of reference necessitates a consideration of the existing scheme as a whole, not just in relation to matters of delay. To consider whether there is unnecessary delay, consideration must be given to all relevant elements of the VOCAT process. This holistic analysis is confirmed by the supplementary terms of reference, which ask the Commission to consider the operation and effectiveness of the VOCAA and VOCAT for all victims.

7.4 Accordingly, the question of whether there are other possible models of state-funded financial assistance that would more effectively deliver assistance was considered in Part Three of the Commission’s supplementary consultation paper.^[2] In examining this holistic question, the Commission proposed that victims’ needs should be at the centre of any reform proposals. The supplementary consultation paper sought community and stakeholder views on what victims’ needs are, and how they should be met through a state-funded financial assistance scheme.^[3] This chapter begins by considering community and stakeholder views on victims’ needs.

7.5 This chapter then considers whether a new model is required, having regard to the objectives articulated in the supplementary terms of reference—that a state-funded financial assistance scheme for victims should seek to achieve outcomes for victims that:

• are fair, equitable and timely

• are consistent and predictable

• minimise trauma for victims and maximise therapeutic effect for victims

• that the state-funded financial assistance scheme must be efficient and sustainable for the state

7.6 In addition, at matter one of the supplementary terms of reference, the Commission is asked to consider whether the VOCAA can be simplified to make it easier for victims to understand and not require victims to have legal support in all circumstances.

7.7 These objectives can be summarised as comprising the following eight elements:

• fair and equitable

• timely

• consistent and predictable

• maximise therapeutic effect

• minimise trauma

• easy to understand

• do not require legal support in all circumstances

• efficient and sustainable for the state.

Victims’ needs

7.8 Victims’ needs—including their needs relating to state-funded financial assistance—are inextricably linked with the impacts of crime on victims.^[4] Ensuring victims’ needs are met is challenging because no two victims of a crime experience the same impacts, and consequently, no two victims have exactly the same needs.^[5]

7.9 Research has emphasised that the impact of crime on victims is a ‘highly individualised experience’ and does not necessarily correspond to the “seriousness” of the crime based solely on crime type’.^[6] Crime affects different people in different ways and victims’ needs are diverse and variable.^[7]

7.10 Although the impacts of crime may vary depending on a victim’s individual characteristics, as well as by crime type, research suggests that an emotional and psychological reaction occurs in most victims.^[8] Other common impacts of crime include physical^[9] and financial impacts.^[10] These are often compounded by the need for victims to engage with an unfamiliar criminal justice system.^[11]

7.11 Accordingly, victims’ varied needs may include:^[12]

• emotional, psychological and health needs, such as counselling or psychological assistance

• information needs, such information on the criminal justice process or broader support system

• practical support needs, such as a safe house or a safety plan

• financial needs, such as assistance with medical or dental bills.

7.12 Significantly, victims’ needs change over time—some arise immediately following the criminal act, while others are longer term.^[13] This variability in victims’ needs requires victims’ services to be ‘flexible, creative and innovative’,^[14] providing victims with choice,^[15] to ensure the right assistance can be offered to victims at the right time.^[16]

7.13 This need for flexibility is reflected in Victoria’s government-funded victim assistance programs^[17] and the Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), which requires support and justice agencies to ‘take into account, and be responsive to, the particular needs of persons adversely affected by crime’.^[18] VOCAT has also acknowledged the importance of providing practical and flexible assistance to victims in the provision of state-funded financial assistance.^[19]

Responses

7.14 To ensure victims’ needs were the starting point for the Commission’s consideration of any reform options, the Commission’s supplementary consultation paper asked the community and stakeholders what victims’ needs are, and how they should be met through a state-funded financial assistance scheme.^[20]

Victims’ needs are diverse

7.15 Consistent with the research discussed above, stakeholders said that victims of crime are a diverse group, with a range of different needs.^[21] As Schembri & Co Lawyers submitted to the Commission, victims’ needs are ‘multiple and complex’.^[22]

7.16 The diversity of victims’ needs was also confirmed by VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and the Children’s Court of Victoria who submitted:

The impact of violent crime on a victim, and the path to recovery from the harm suffered is unique to each and every victim. Whether the violent crime was a single event (such as a one-off assault) or a protracted experience (as in many cases of family violence), the impact will not be linear, predictable or fixed over time.^[23]

7.17 Similarly, the Victims of Crime Commissioner submitted that:

Victims of crime have a variety of needs. Some victims of crime will require significantly more support and assistance than others. However, all victims need to feel as if they matter. They need to feel respected and acknowledged.^[24]

7.18 Some academics told the Commission that while the specific needs of individual victims may vary, the needs of victims can generally be categorised as pecuniary and non-pecuniary.^[25]

7.19 Pecuniary needs include payment of financial expenses following the criminal act, as well as longer-term practical and health expenses to assist victims in their recovery. Non-pecuniary needs often include recognition of the trauma that they have experienced, an apology, an opportunity to participate in the justice process or to be heard.^[26]

7.20 Anglicare Victoria’s Victim Assistance Program submitted that victims’ practical needs might include emergency travel immediately after a crime, medical assistance, food and housing, psychological support and debriefing.^[27]

Flexibility

7.21 In both written submissions and during consultations, stakeholders said there is a need for flexibility in Victoria’s victims of crime financial assistance scheme.^[28] A number of stakeholders told the Commission that there is a need for an individualised approach.^[29] As safe steps Family Violence Response Centre submitted to the Commission, a ‘more flexible approach acknowledges that not all applicants are alike and that their needs may change over time’.^[30]

7.22 Similarly, Domestic Violence Victoria and Women’s Legal Service Victoria submitted that assistance should be flexible and correspond to the lived experience of survivors of family violence.^[31]

The need for timely assistance

7.23 Timely assistance was also articulated as a key victim need by many stakeholders.^[32]

As the Victims of Crime Commissioner submitted, many victims require urgent assistance immediately following a criminal act.^[33]

7.24 Victim support workers submitted that victims’ immediate needs for financial assistance should be responded to in a timely manner without victims having to consult a lawyer, retell their story or prove psychological injury, which ‘could be assumed for the majority of violent crimes’.^[34]

7.25 Early intervention was also highlighted to the Commission as a key need:

Victims’ practical needs should be met in a timely manner requiring minimal administrative and other hoops to jump through, potentially hastening their recovery. Having a central point through which to apply for assistance, where decisions are made quickly, and are not dependent on magistrates having time in their busy work days to review applications would streamline the process.^[35]

7.26 Cohealth submitted that urgent needs often include relocation expenses and financial assistance for loss of earnings.^[36] The Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria submitted that victims of family violence often need immediate financial support to leave a violent relationship and establish safety and security measures.^[37]

7.27 The importance of timely practical assistance was also raised in relation to counselling, medical, dental and safety expenses.^[38] As the NSW Commissioner of Victims Rights told the Commission, medical assistance is more effective when provided as quickly as possible.^[39]

Holistic, victim-centred and trauma-informed support

7.28 Victim representatives of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee told the Commission that victims require holistic support— provided through one coordinating body—commencing immediately after a crime occurs encompassing both therapeutic and practical aspects such as counselling, financial assistance and court support.^[40] This view was echoed by victim, witness and court support workers who told the Commission that victims need a ‘central place’ for all their needs to be met, including financial assistance.^[41] In this context, the Commission was told that victims’ services in Victoria are fragmented.^[42]

7.29 The Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council told the Commission that victims need responses that are victim-centred and do not re-traumatise the victim or cause further psychological damage.^[43] The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service emphasised the need for a therapeutic approach which appropriately engages with a victim’s culture and history, including the effects of inter-generational trauma.^[44]

Recognition of long-term needs

7.30 A number of stakeholders emphasised that victims often have long-term needs that extend beyond the more identifiable needs that may immediately arise following a criminal act. In this context, stakeholders said that the existing scheme does not adequately recognise the longer-term—sometimes lifetime—needs of victims.^[45] VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria also emphasised the longer term needs of victims:

Years after the crime, for example, a change in a victim’s circumstances could trigger the need to resume counselling, or it might take months or years before a victim is ready to seek assistance to re-skill and seek employment as part of their efforts to reclaim or establish their independence.^[46]

7.31 Taking into account the broader health impacts of victimisation, Daniel Myles et al submitted victims’ longer-term needs may include personal care, case management, cleaning and maintenance services, carer assisted shopping and outings, accessibility aides, home modifications and transport costs associated with injury-related appointments.^[47]

7.32 Daniel Myles et al also submitted that major trauma patients who are subject to interpersonal violence often experience poorer longer-term recovery outcomes when compared with patients injured in unintentional events, with victims of crime less likely to be pain-free, or to have experienced a full recovery or returned to work compared to other patient groups.^[48] These findings suggest that many victims of crime will continue to require practical and financial assistance months and years after the criminal act.

The need to be heard and acknowledged

7.33 Stakeholders submitted that victims often also have non-pecuniary needs, in particular the need for acknowledgment^[49] and validation of their experience as victims of crime.^[50] The RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice, drawing on the work of academic Kathleen Daly, described these broader non-pecuniary needs as ‘justice needs’, which include the need for participation, voice, validation, vindication and offender accountability.^[51]

7.34 Similarly, knowmore, an independent legal service for victims of institutional child sexual abuse, submitted that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse need acknowledgment, but often also have additional justice needs such as a need for system reform and general deterrence.^[52]

7.35 Consistent with the view that victims’ needs include non-pecuniary needs, the Commission was told that many victims seek to be heard and acknowledged, whether through the criminal justice system or the state-funded financial assistance scheme.^[53] Some stakeholders described this as ‘validation’ of the victim’s experience of the crime.^[54] The Commission was told that for many victims of crime, the most important thing is acknowledgment—an apology or expression of sympathy from the state.^[55] In the words of one submission:

But what I wanted more than the dollars was acknowledgment. I merely wanted a tribunal to listen to my story and say to me, in words like these: We believe you. We acknowledge your pain and your trauma at the hands of an abusive and violent person.^[56]

7.36 The South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive submitted:

A victims of crime assistance scheme is … vital to providing victims of family violence with the opportunity to be heard and validated, to have their “day in court”, as well as providing for financial compensation. The hearing can be powerfully therapeutic for a victim’s recovery.^[57]

7.37 The importance of hearings as an opportunity for victims to be acknowledged was emphasised by many stakeholders.^[58] Although many stakeholders said that not all victims may want to attend a hearing, the opportunity for a victim to be heard and acknowledged was often described to the Commission as ‘powerful’,^[59] ‘empowering’^[60] or ‘therapeutic’.^[61] The importance of hearings and the opportunity to be heard is discussed further in Chapter 8.

Stakeholder views on models of assistance

7.38 As noted above, the supplementary terms of reference ask the Commission to look beyond reform of technical legal and procedural aspects of the VOCAA and VOCAT, and to consider whether any processes, procedures or requirements under the VOCAA cause unnecessary delay to the provision of assistance to victims of crime. In considering this, the Commission is asked to consider whether there are other models that would more effectively deliver assistance, for example an administrative or quasi-administrative model.

7.39 To address this broader question, Part Three of the Commission’s supplementary consultation paper considered two options for possible reform to more effectively deliver assistance and better meet the outcomes specified in the supplementary terms of reference:^[62]

• Reform the existing model: improve the existing scheme through both legislative

and procedural reform, while retaining the existing model in which VOCAT operations are subsidised by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and magistrates sit as tribunal members in VOCAT.^[63]

• Implement a new model of assistance: adopt a new model of state-funded financial assistance, such as an administrative or quasi-administrative model.

7.40 Noting the above broad options for reform, the Commission asked stakeholders whether:

• judicial decision making remains appropriate and sustainable;

• financial assistance should be integrated with the existing victim support system

through an administrative model; or

• an alternative decision maker—like an independent Commissioner—would deliver assistance more effectively.

Responses

7.41 Approximately half of all written submissions received in response to the Commission’s consultation papers expressed no clear view on the model of assistance, or did not comment at all on this issue.^[64]

7.42 Among those stakeholders expressing a view on the model of assistance in their written submission, views were almost equally split between those supporting the retention of a judicial model and those supporting a new model of assistance, with slightly more written submissions supporting some form of new model.^[65]

7.43 There were clear demographic differences between those who supported the retention

of a judicial model and those advocating for an administrative model in the written submissions received.

7.44 Support for the retention of a judicial model came from VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria, as well as lawyers, with support from some victim assistance and advocacy organisations as well as some academics.^[66]

7.45 Support for an administrative model came primarily from victims and some victim assistance or victim advocacy organisations.^[67] Support for an administrative model also came from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Hume Riverina Community Legal Service.^[68]

7.46 A number of victims’ representatives and victim advocacy or assistance organisations did not comment on the model of assistance, or did not express a definitive or clear view. Of those victim advocacy or assistance organisations that did express a view, most favoured a shift to an administrative model,^[69] while only two such organisations supported the retention of the judicial model.^[70]

Support for retaining a judicial model

7.47 As already noted above, almost half the written submissions expressing a view on the model of state-funded financial assistance supported the retention of a judicial model. Reasons included that:

• the judicial basis of the existing VOCAT scheme ensures victim participation and redresses the balance of the criminal justice system

• therapeutic effect is maximised through hearings where there is judicial acknowledgment

• the complexity of VOCAA necessitates judicial decision making

• judicial discretion in decision making ensures an individualised approach

• a victim’s right to legal representation is ensured.

7.48 These reasons are outlined further below.

Victim participation and redressing the balance of the criminal justice system

7.49 Some stakeholders submitted that the judicial basis of the existing VOCAT scheme redresses the balance of the criminal justice system.^[71] For example, Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers submitted that a ‘move to an administrative model would serve to further disenfranchise victims from the criminal justice system’.^[72]

7.50 YourLawyer submitted that being heard during the VOCAT process gives victims ‘legitimacy’:

Even in cases where a criminal prosecution of the alleged offender has resulted, oftentimes victims feel that the criminal justice process is focused on the alleged offender and that they, as the victim, are sidelined. Having the ability … to be heard at a hearing, gives the victim legitimacy.^[73]

7.51 Complementary to this notion of ‘acknowledgment’ was the concept that judicial models provide a ‘voice’ to victims.^[74] The RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice submitted that VOCAT provides a forum for ‘participation and voice’ and an opportunity for victims to recount their experiences in a meaningful setting.^[75]

7.52 The Commission was told by some victim representatives of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee that having judicial decision makers for state-funded financial assistance applications was important as ‘it is the only time during the criminal justice process that the process is about the victim’.^[76]

Maximising therapeutic effect through judicial acknowledgment

7.53 In both written submissions and in consultations, stakeholders spoke of the therapeutic effect of victims being acknowledged at a hearing by a judicial officer,^[77] particularly where a criminal matter has not progressed.^[78]

7.54 The Commission was told that it can be very powerful for victims to have a magistrate acknowledge them as a victim.^[79] Indeed, some stakeholders said that for some victims, judicial acknowledgment was often worth more than any fiscal amount.^[80] Some referred to this as a victim’s opportunity to have ‘their day in court’.^[81]

7.55 Stakeholders also submitted that:

Hearings in front of a [compassionate] Magistrate can be of enormous benefit.^[82]

[a]n empathetic Magistrate has the opportunity to provide [victims] with an acknowledgement of the injury they have sustained. Magistrates have been known to say, “I have no doubt that this happened to you and the State will provide you with the following assistance to help you recover.”^[83]

If [victims’] claims were managed administratively and not by a judicial officer, they would miss out on the validation they receive from a Magistrate which can be essential to their recovery.^[84]

Quite often the recognition in the form of an official award from the Tribunal carries significant benefits in the form of validation and closure. This is particularly our experience in the context of sexual abuse matters or where the victim has felt disempowered by the criminal process.^[85]

7.56 The joint submission by VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria also noted the importance of victims having the opportunity to be heard:

The [current VOCAT approach] embodies one of the most important components of a therapeutic approach—the option for victims to have a hearing before a Tribunal Member … for some victims, their recovery journey includes having their ‘day in Court’, to have their experience formally acknowledged and to have their story believed.^[86]

7.57 A number of stakeholders considered Victoria’s court-based scheme to be unique, and the opportunity for hearings to be its strength compared to other schemes:

the therapeutic value of the VOCAT hearing itself cannot be over-stated. So many of our clients report that the hearing itself is the most beneficial part of the process … The human acknowledgement and recognition that comes with a hearing can be a powerful and life-changing experience for many survivors.^[87]

7.58 A number of stakeholders considered that hearings would not be available under an administrative model and for this reason, supported the retention of the current judicial system.^[88]

Complexity requires judicial decision making

7.59 Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers submitted that the complexity of the scheme necessitates judicial decision making supported by legal representation for applicants.^[89] The Commission was also told by some academics that administrative schemes may ‘trade off’ accuracy for timeliness and cost-effectiveness.^[90]

7.60 A number of legal professionals and members of the Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce told the Commission that the model of assistance is intrinsically linked with the complexity of the VOCAA’s legislative requirements. For example, the Commission was told that if the definition of injury and the need to prove causation were simplified, an administrative scheme might be more appropriate.^[91] On the other hand, other stakeholders told the Commission that even ‘simple’ matters have complexities that might not be immediately apparent and would not be suitable for an administrative scheme.^[92]

7.61 Other stakeholders told the Commission that judicial oversight was particularly important in matters concerning family violence, where there was an increased risk of misidentification of victims and perpetrators.^[93] The Commission was told that such matters are complex and require judicial decision making to interrogate issues with a specialised understanding of family violence.^[94]

Recognising the individual needs of victims

7.62 The Commission was told by a number of stakeholders that an administrative scheme may result in a ‘tick the box’ approach and may fail to consider the individual needs of victims,^[95] particularly in relation to family violence matters, where the Commission was told a more nuanced approach is required.^[96]

7.63 Stakeholders also told the Commission that under an administrative model there was a risk victims would be just ‘another number’^[97] with decisions being made by ‘faceless bureaucrats’.^[98]

7.64 The Commission was told that the high level of discretion afforded to magistrates under the existing scheme was conducive to an individualised approach.^[99]

Right to legal representation

7.65 A number of stakeholders submitted that a victim’s right to legal representation is crucial, and that an administrative model may erode this right.^[100] For example Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers submitted:

We are concerned that the introduction of an administrative or quasi-administrative model would jeopardise the ability of a victim to access services and benefits as it would deny victims the right to be guided by legal advice.^[101]

7.66 Some stakeholders submitted that legal practitioners were better equipped than case managers to identify evidentiary or eligibility issues^[102] and advocate to ensure victims’ full entitlements are obtained.^[103] Submissions also noted the vulnerability of some victim cohorts and the importance of victims having legal representation due to the VOCAA’s complexity.^[104] Dr Kate Seear et al submitted that victims’ rights might be jeopardised without adequate legal advice and representation.^[105]

7.67 The Commission was also told that an administrative scheme, which removed the need for lawyers, might shift the onus onto victims to navigate the process without support.^[106]

7.68 It was submitted that if an administrative scheme were to be adopted, the same body may be responsible both for assisting victims with their claim, and for making the financial assistance decision.^[107] The joint submission by Springvale Monash Legal Centre et al stated:

We have serious concerns regarding any scheme in which the equivalent of “representation” for victims is provided by the same body responsible for deciding the financial assistance to be provided.^[108]

7.69 The Commission notes that while neither a judicial or administrative model necessarily includes or excludes legal representation, in some Australian schemes—notably, the administrative scheme in New South Wales—legal costs are not reimbursed.^[109] In contrast, the administrative schemes in both the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland reimburse legal costs up to a fixed cap.^[110]

Support for a new model

7.70 As noted above, almost half the written submissions expressing a view on the model of state-funded financial assistance expressed support for a new model, such as an administrative or quasi-administrative model.^[111] The Commission was told that for these stakeholders, a new model would deliver assistance more effectively and better meet victims’ needs. Reasons expressed included that an administrative or quasi-administrative model would:

• reduce the potential for re-traumatisation

• provide a better way for victims to be acknowledged

• reduce the need for legal representation

• better integrate victim support, financial assistance and case management

• increase transparency and consistency of decision making

• reduce the burden on the criminal justice system

• provide for more timely decision making.

7.71 These reasons are outlined further below.

Reducing re-traumatisation

7.72 In contrast with submissions and consultations noted earlier, some stakeholders said that the existing judicial model is not therapeutic,^[112] victim-centred^[113] or trauma-informed.^[114]

7.73 Merri Health Victims Assistance Program submitted that although VOCAT hearings can be therapeutic and beneficial for some victims, the VOCAT hearing process can be distressing for other victims:

The hearing process in itself is usually a traumatic, intimidating or distressing event for a victim. A less formal, non-judicial process would be a more effective way.^[115]

7.74 Some stakeholders said that the existing scheme requires victims to continually retell their story in a non-therapeutic environment^[116] while others told the Commission that having a claim rejected by a judicial officer at a hearing can be very traumatic and damaging,^[117] as a victims’ experience is invalidated.^[118] This view was also echoed in consultations where the Commission was told that the VOCAT process can be disempowering when not done well.^[119]

7.75 The ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner told the Commission that while there might be some benefit in judicial acknowledgment for victims, this is based on an assumption that the court process can be conducted in a beneficial way. The Commission was told that the court process is inherently rigid and can result in unintended consequences for many victims.^[120]

7.76 From the perspective of diverse and intersectional communities, the Commission was told that telling ‘their story’—which can be very personal and intimate—can be difficult in a judicial setting, particularly where a victim has previously had a negative experience of the justice system.^[121]

7.77 The Commission was also told that the existing scheme can be traumatic for victims because of its proximity to, and similarities with, the criminal justice process. For example, some stakeholders said that VOCAT is an adversarial process^[122] and therefore makes some victims ‘feel like a criminal’,^[123] ‘judged’ and that they have to ‘justify their emotions’.^[124] In addition, the Commission was told that the VOCAT process, being a court-like process, can be a ‘burden’ for some victims, particularly where victims are managing multiple court processes in different jurisdictions.^[125] The Commission was also told that some victim

cohorts simply do not pursue an application because it would require them to go through yet another court process.^[126]

7.78 The Commission was also told of concerns directly related to the conduct of magistrates sitting as VOCAT tribunal members. The Victims of Crime Commissioner told the Commission that their office had received complaints about the conduct of magistrates and their treatment of victims.^[127] The Victims of Crime Commissioner told the Commission that while there can be positive experiences, the potential benefits of a judicial model are outweighed by the negative aspects.^[128]

7.79 The Commission was also told that some stakeholders could not reconcile what they perceived to be an incompatibility between the role of a magistrate sitting in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and their role as a Tribunal member. For example, the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council told the Commission that magistrates are inappropriate financial assistance decision makers because financial assistance decisions require a ‘different mindset’ and fulfilling dual roles is like asking magistrates to ‘wear two different conflicting hats’.^[129] Other stakeholders agreed, suggesting the different roles of magistrates can cause difficulty, particularly in rural and regional areas where a small pool of magistrates means the tribunal member presiding over a VOCAT matter is often aware of an applicant’s criminal history.^[130]

7.80 Some academics consulted by the Commission said that judicial officers may not be the best decision makers because the decision maker needs to be trauma-informed, and this is unlikely to be achieved using magistrates.^[131] The Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council also told the Commission that financial assistance would be better provided within a restorative justice framework ‘without a judicial underpinning’.^[132]

7.81 A number of stakeholders said that the adoption of a new administrative or quasi-administrative model would reduce the potential for re-traumatisation,^[133] limiting victims’ exposure to a formal court-like setting and would thereby reduce the likelihood of trauma.^[134]

Providing a better way for victim acknowledgment

7.82 The Commission was told that there may be better ways for the justice system to acknowledge victims than through hearings for financial assistance. For example, the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner told the Commission that victims ‘don’t have to be recognised in a court of law to be recognised’.^[135] Similarly, a participant in the consultation meeting with the Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce told the Commission that while judicial recognition can be powerful, a transformative justice experience might still be possible without a judicial decision maker.^[136]

7.83 Stakeholders said that acknowledgment could come from senior government officials,^[137] an administrator, panel member or commissioner,^[138] provided the acknowledgment comes from someone with standing.^[139] Victoria Legal Aid (Gippsland), for example, told the Commission that for many victims, there would be little difference between a magistrate and another senior figure, such as a commissioner, as they are both authoritative figures.^[140] Similarly, other stakeholders told the Commission that it did not matter who provided acknowledgment to victims, so long as it occurred in a meaningful^[141] and respectful way.^[142]

7.84 The Victims of Crime Commissioner submitted that victim ‘conferences’ could provide a forum for victims to be acknowledged by a senior government official and provide victims with an opportunity to discuss their experience.^[143] Other stakeholders agreed, suggesting a forum for private, informal hearings on request of a victim.^[144]

7.85 Some representatives of the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council told the Commission that while ‘symbolic’ hearings would not be part of the criminal process, such a process could still address the imbalance of the criminal justice system.^[145]

7.86 Other stakeholders considered that recognition is not necessarily dependent on hearings. For example, some stakeholders told the Commission of cases where victims had received comprehensive statements of reasons through the New South Wales financial assistance scheme and had felt acknowledged and validated.^[146] The NSW Commissioner of Victims Rights also told the Commission that many victims feel validated when receiving the written statement of reasons.^[147]

Reducing the need for legal representation

7.87 Some stakeholders told the Commission during consultations, and in submissions to the Commission, that the existing scheme’s reliance on lawyers is problematic^[148] because:

• it results in some lawyers making significant amounts of money—sometimes more than the victim^[149]

• community legal centres have limited resources, and there is limited access to private lawyers with VOCAT experience, especially in rural and regional areas^[150]

• it can be difficult to access appropriately skilled lawyers, particularly as some lawyers will not take on difficult VOCAT cases, or other lawyers will not take on VOCAT work because of the uncertainty about receiving VOCAT reimbursement^[151]

• lawyers did not seem to approach VOCAT work in a trauma-informed way.^[152]

7.88 A number of stakeholders suggested an administrative scheme would help reduce reliance on legal representation.^[153]

Integrating victim support and financial assistance, including case management

7.89 Some stakeholders submitted that one of the strengths of administrative schemes is the ability for victims to receive support and case management throughout their application process.^[154] This is because in some administrative schemes, like the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, the scheme case-manages victims’ applications throughout the assessment process.^[155]

7.90 The Commission was also told that administrative schemes can place less demanding evidentiary burdens on applicants,^[156] with the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council submitting that administrative schemes provide more ‘holistic’ support to victims.^[157]

7.91 Some stakeholders suggested that state-funded financial assistance to victims of crime may be better provided as part of the existing victim support system because victim support organisations—like community organisations administering the government-funded Victim Assistance Program (VAP)—are already working directly with victims to manage their recovery.^[158] This was suggested by some VAPs and Hume Riverina Community Legal Service.^[159]

7.92 Some stakeholders said that an administrative scheme would better streamline the financial assistance process and provide more timely assistance.^[160] Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program submitted that an ‘administrative model sitting with[in] an agency such as DOJR would … streamline the process’.^[161]

Increasing transparency and consistency of decision making

7.93 A number of stakeholders said that an administrative scheme would improve transparency and consistency in decision making^[162] and would, among other things, overcome some of the inconsistencies in judicial decision making.^[163]

7.94 Some stakeholders told the Commission that inconsistency in VOCAT decision making is a particular issue in rural and regional areas^[164] as a result of changing magistrates through the use of the circuit court,^[165] and because permanent magistrates and registries can develop their own differing approaches and attitudes.^[166]

Reducing the burden on the criminal justice system

7.95 The Commission was told that using judicial decision makers imposes a further burden on an already stretched criminal justice system.^[167] One participant in the Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce consultation told the Commission that using judicial decision makers increases demand on the courts.^[168] The Victims of Crime Commissioner submitted that the VOCAT scheme impinges on an already stretched Magistrates’ Court.^[169]

7.96 The Commission was told that it may be more efficient to take VOCAT out of the Magistrates’ Court,^[170] with a number of stakeholders submitting that an administrative scheme would free up judicial resources.^[171] This view was emphasised particularly by stakeholders in rural and regional areas who told the Commission that the workload of rural magistrates means very little time is able to be given to VOCAT matters.^[172]

More timely decision making and assistance

7.97 A number of stakeholders said that using administrative decision making processes would improve the timeliness of state-funded financial assistance for victims of crime.^[173]

7.98 In consultations with representatives of the state-funded financial assistance schemes in Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales, the Commission was told that changing to an administrative model had greatly increased efficiency and improved timeliness in their respective jurisdictions.^[174]

Stakeholder views on essential scheme components

7.99 Although there is a divergence of stakeholder views on the preferred model of assistance for reasons outlined above, the Commission notes that there is nevertheless common agreement among many stakeholders on the essential components of any state-funded financial assistance scheme, regardless of whether it is a judicial or administrative model.

7.100 In particular, the Commission notes that stakeholders generally agreed that any model of state-funded financial assistance should:

• be trauma-informed and victim-centred^[175]

• have specialised and dedicated decision makers^[176] or specialised streams, like family violence or sexual assault^[177]

• provide victims with the opportunity to be heard^[178]

• ensure victims have the right to be legally represented^[179]

• provide accessible, flexible and timely assistance.^[180]

Discussion—does Victoria’s existing scheme meet the reference objectives?

7.101 As outlined above, the supplementary terms of reference require the Commission to consider the operation and effectiveness of the VOCAA and VOCAT for all victims of crime, including whether any processes, procedures or requirements under the VOCAA cause unnecessary delay to the provision of assistance to victims of crime. In considering this, the Commission is asked to consider whether there are other models that would more effectively deliver assistance, for example an administrative or quasi-administrative model.

7.102 Before considering other models, this part of the chapter assesses the extent to which the existing scheme is meeting the objectives identified in the supplementary terms of reference. In undertaking this assessment, the Commission has considered stakeholder views, existing research conducted into VOCAT’s operations and victims’ experiences of VOCAT, as well as the experiences and approaches of other jurisdictions for comparison.

7.103 The Commission notes that there have been relatively few empirical studies into VOCAT’s operations or effectiveness over the past 20 years. Research has been limited to small research studies with relatively small sample sizes, or limited to discrete areas of VOCAT’s operations, such as the provision of counselling or the operation of the VOCAT Koori List.^[181] Furthermore, very few of VOCAT’s decisions are publicly available. Accordingly, the Commission mainly relies on review decisions by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and the Supreme Court of Victoria.^[182]

7.104 This lack of empirical evidence in relation to the operation of victims’ compensation schemes is not unique to Victoria. Mulder observes that the granting of public funds to victims of crime has ‘hardly been studied’.^[183] Kunst et al have suggested that research into victims’ satisfaction with state compensation is scarce.^[184] In Australia, Genevieve M Grant has observed that while the statutory objectives of various state-funded compensation schemes typically include promoting rehabilitation, there is ‘remarkably little legal scholarship exploring claimant experiences of scheme performance against these aims’.^[185] Similarly, Robyn L Holder and Kathleen Daly note that research on victims’ compensation schemes is ‘scant’.^[186]

7.105 While there is little empirical research specifically related to VOCAT’s operations, there is a range of anecdotal evidence illustrating victims’ experiences of VOCAT based on the views expressed to the Commission during consultations and in written submissions, as well as in relevant Victorian case law and research studies.^[187] In addition to stakeholder views, the Commission has used a range of quantitative and qualitative datasets to assist in forming its conclusions. These include data provided by VOCAT in its annual reports, case law decisions, information provided by those administering schemes in other Australian jurisdictions, and academic and government research on victim experiences of state-funded financial assistance schemes. In using a variety of sources to gather such information, key themes emerge about VOCAT’s, and other schemes’, operations.

7.106 Key themes arising in relation to the operation of VOCAT and other schemes’ are considered below against each of the identified reference objectives:

• fair and equitable

• timely

• consistent and predictable

• maximise therapeutic effect

• minimise trauma

• easy to understand

• does not require legal support in all circumstances

• efficient and sustainable for the state.

7.107 The reference objectives provide the Commission with its guiding framework for assessing:

• the operation and effectiveness of the existing scheme

• whether there are other models of state-funded financial assistance that would more effectively deliver assistance, as required by the supplementary terms of reference.

Maximise therapeutic effect and minimise trauma

7.108 As discussed in detail above, consultation and submissions findings suggest that the opportunity to be heard by a judicial officer can have a therapeutic effect for some victims and may be the victim’s only opportunity to be acknowledged and heard.^[188] As VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria submitted, ‘for some victims, their recovery journey includes having their “day in Court”, to have their experience formally acknowledged and to have their story believed’.^[189]

7.109 However, the VOCAT process can also be traumatic for some victims.^[190] Some stakeholders said the existing scheme is not always therapeutic,^[191] trauma-informed^[192] or victim-centred.^[193]

7.110 In particular, the Commission was told that the very nature of a court-based model requires victims to defend or ‘prove’ themselves.^[194]

7.111 Although the Commission was told by some stakeholders that having a judicial officer decide an application for financial assistance can make the process ‘extra validating’ for victims whose claims are successful, the Commission was told that having judicial decision makers can be ‘extra invalidating’ for victims whose claims are rejected.^[195] This view was also held by some academics consulted by the Commission, who said that when a judicial process does not work, it can be counter-therapeutic for victims.^[196]

7.112 One victim support agency submitted:

Hearings can be powerful for the victims in having there [sic] opportunity to tell their story and the effect it has had on them. This again relies on the personality of the members holding the hearing. I have experience[d] some good ones and some terrible ones where the victim has walked out feeling worse.^[197]

7.113 The Commission was also told that VOCAT hearings can be adversarial, formal and legalistic.^[198] The Victorian Victims of Crime Commissioner told the Commission that while there can be positive experiences of a judicial model, these can be outweighed by the negative aspects.^[199]

7.114 Of particular concern to many stakeholders is section 34(2) of the VOCAA which enables VOCAT to ‘give notice of the time and place for the hearing to any other person whom the Tribunal considers to have a legitimate interest’ in the matter.^[200] The effect of this provision is to enable the notification of an alleged perpetrator where VOCAT considers they have a ‘legitimate interest’ in relation to the matter.^[201] In addition, section 35(1) of the VOCAA also allows ‘any other person or body that, in the Tribunal’s opinion, has a substantial interest in a matter is entitled to appear and be heard by the Tribunal on the hearing of the matter’,^[202] with the effect that in certain circumstances, an alleged perpetrator will also have a right to appear at a VOCAT hearing.

7.115 As noted in Chapters 5 and 6, although perpetrator notification may only occur rarely, the Commission was told that the mere fact that it exists at all can be a deterrent for some victims, who may elect not to pursue a VOCAT application because of the potential of the perpetrator being notified.^[203] Some stakeholders suggested that the perpetrator notification provision mirrors the criminal justice system’s focus on offender rights over victim rights.^[204] Others suggested that the provisions ‘are completely at odds with the objectives of the Act’.^[205] In this respect, the Commission was told the perpetrator notification provisions impact the ability for VOCAT to maximise therapeutic effect and minimise trauma. As stated by Inner Melbourne Community Legal:

It is not just actual notification that causes applicants distress, but the idea that they may be potentially notified. In the case of one of our clients, they experienced loss of sleep, psoriasis, and an increase in anxiety symptoms at the idea of having to face their assailant at a hearing.^[206]

7.116 In summary, stakeholder views demonstrate a varied experience of VOCAT’s therapeutic effect. The potential for VOCAT to be both therapeutic and counter-therapeutic is also confirmed by research. For example, research by the Victims Support Agency in 2011 suggests victims’ experience of VOCAT hearings can be positive,^[207] but that this is not the case for all victims:

Comments about the VOCAT hearing were mixed. While many participants made positive comments about Tribunal Members and felt acknowledged and validated by the hearing, particularly where no offender was prosecuted, some participants felt distressed by having to recount details of the crime they experienced.^[208]

7.117 The potentially therapeutic effect of VOCAT may be more complex for some victims than others. For example, VOCAT’s review of the pilot Koori List highlighted that a victim’s experience of the VOCAT process can be impacted by their prior experiences of the justice process:

Koori victims of crime generally have a lot of mistrust about the judicial system, distrust that may extend from their experiences with the police, prisons or as prior offenders … this distrust extends to legal practitioners as well as to the police and the Tribunal. Participants [to the review] agreed that applicants’ prior experiences of the justice system could affect their perception of the hearing process.^[209]

7.118 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria also submitted that other factors, beyond the hearing process, may be determinants of a victim’s therapeutic experience:

Significant determinants of a therapeutic experience include a victim’s eligibility and the quantum of awards available to be paid. The consistency of decisions and predictability of outcomes are also key.^[210]

7.119 Academic research has identified a range of factors as impacting on victim satisfaction. While approval of requests for compensation are positively associated with victim satisfaction, studies suggest the amount of compensation does not necessarily contribute to victims’ satisfaction levels.^[211] In particular, Kunst et al found that satisfaction with compensation processes was negatively predicted by the duration of the application process.^[212]

7.120 Hayley Catherine Clark observed that some applicants can receive greater gratification from affirmation than from the monetary award itself.^[213] Similarly, Holder and Daly observed that procedural matters such as the timeliness of an award or interactions with fund staff are more often related to victim satisfaction than the money awarded.^[214]

7.121 Together, these research findings suggest factors other than monetary amounts—including timeliness and affirmation—may be of primary importance to victims.^[215] This has led Kunst et al to observe:

one might argue that crime victims will be satisfied with the services provided by compensation schemes if they—in their opinion—are respectfully treated and adequately informed …^[216]

7.122 The Commission notes that although VOCAT is less formal than a court hearing, it is adversarial in nature, requiring the use of legal processes and judicial officers. In addition, and because of the use of judicial officers, court infrastructure and staff, VOCAT is a formal and potentially intimidating process. As Chan et al have observed the ‘adversarial nature of the compensation process for many victim schemes can detract from the well-being of the victim and from the rehabilitative objectives of the scheme’.^[217]

7.123 Stakeholder views also confirm the potential for the VOCAA’s alleged perpetrator notification and appearance provisions to cause victims’ distress and to reduce the therapeutic aspects of the financial assistance process.

7.124 As noted in the then-Department of Justice discussion paper on state-funded financial assistance: ‘some victims find a tribunal hearing distressing or traumatising, particularly in the rare event that the offender is notified and attends’.^[218]

7.125 This observation is also reflected in case studies provided to the Commission in stakeholder submissions which confirm the counter-therapeutic nature of many VOCAT processes.^[219] Examples include VOCAT asking an 11-year-old to give evidence at a hearing about an alleged sexual assault;^[220] VOCAT advising lawyers they would have to take into account the intoxication of their client who was allegedly raped when she was 13 years old under section 54 of the VOCAA;^[221] a child victim being requested by VOCAT to attend a hearing for the purposes of providing proof of the scarring caused by the act of violence;^[222] and instances of victims withdrawing their VOCAT application in family violence matters because VOCAT intended to notify the alleged perpetrator about the application.^[223]

7.126 The Commission was told of one victim who described VOCAT as so damaging that she considered abandoning her application because she didn’t want to participate in her ‘own abuse’.^[224] In particular, the Commission was told ‘VOCAT [has] traumatised me on a completely different level’.^[225]

7.127 As Inner Melbourne Community Legal Centre submitted that applications to VOCAT ‘often [come] at an enormous personal cost, physically and emotionally’.^[226]

7.128 While a number of stakeholders have referred to the powerful nature of judicial acknowledgment as a source of therapeutic effect,^[227] as noted above, the current processes can often also cause victims trauma and distress for victims.^[228]

7.129 In the Commission’s view although there is potential for VOCAT to maximise therapeutic effect and minimise trauma, given the divergence of views expressed by stakeholders, this may not be the case for all victims of crime.

Efficient and sustainable for the state

7.130 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria submitted that the existing scheme is efficient and sustainable as it is heavily subsidised by the Magistrates’ Court, which enables VOCAT to use Magistrates’ Court staff, judicial officers and court infrastructure thereby limiting its overall running costs.^[229]

7.131 Stakeholders have also said that using magistrates and court staff for VOCAT purposes burdens an already stretched criminal justice system.^[230] A number of stakeholders highlighted the benefits of an administrative scheme as including the freeing up of judicial resources.^[231]

7.132 In December 2017 and April 2018, media reports suggested that magistrates were struggling to cope with rising caseloads, with the Chief Magistrate confirming that ‘his colleagues were hearing cases at night and on weekends as the system struggled with the soaring numbers of alleged offenders being held on remand’.^[232] It was also reported that ‘some magistrates are overwhelmed by their workloads’.^[233] 

7.133 A number of stakeholders consulted referred to magistrates having heavy case loads and VOCAT being an additional burden on top of their existing Magistrates’ Court work.^[234] VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria also noted in their submission that the VOCAT workload is one of many daily competing priorities across the Magistrates’ Court and that court appearances must necessarily take precedence over the administration of VOCAT matters.^[235]

7.134 Over the last decade, the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court has been expanded through multiple legislative changes and as a result, the seriousness and the complexity of the matters dealt with have increased significantly.^[236] This has included the types of indictable offences that can be tried summarily, all which have had an impact on workload. Many of these changes occurred well after the establishment of VOCAT in 1996.

7.135 The Magistrates’ Court Annual Report has described an increased pressure on the court, particularly in its criminal jurisdiction:

The increasing caseload, the prisoner transport issues, difficulty with obtaining properly accredited interpreters and the increasingly serious matters that now fall within the jurisdiction of the Court have placed very substantial pressures on the Court’s ability to deal with cases efficiently, fairly and effectively.^[237]

7.136 Participants in an evaluation of Victoria Legal Aid’s work in the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court described the entire summary jurisdiction as ‘approaching crisis’ and ‘overloaded, under-resourced and overborne’.^[238]

7.137 Increased pressure in the Magistrates’ Court’s daily work impacts on the ability of magistrates to also undertake VOCAT work because VOCAT does not have dedicated magistrates assigned specifically to undertake VOCAT work—VOCAT matters must be incorporated into a magistrate’s existing workload. As noted by the then-Department of Justice in the 2009 discussion paper Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards:

As [VOCAT] operates within the organisational structure of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, the Tribunal’s caseload and resourcing requirements cannot be considered in isolation of the Magistrates’ Court, which has also experienced an increase in caseload.

The growth in both jurisdictions must be considered as part of the review of the sustainability of the current model of state-funded assistance awards.^[239]

7.138 While VOCAT has submitted that the subsidisation by the Magistrates’ Court increases efficiencies for VOCAT, given the increased pressure in the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction over time, this may ultimately be to the detriment of the Magistrates’ Court’s operations more broadly and indeed, to the wellbeing of judicial officers and victims.^[240]

7.139 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria also raised concerns in their joint submission about the continued subsidisation of VOCAT by the Magistrates’ Court in an increasingly constrained fiscal environment for the court.^[241]

7.140 Accordingly, the Commission considers that, while there may be some efficiencies gained by using the existing infrastructure of the Magistrates’ Court, these are offset by the inefficiencies and longer-term impacts on the sustainability of the Magistrates’ Court and for the state.

Timely decision making

7.141 Many stakeholders told the Commission that the timeliness of VOCAT is a significant problem^[242] and often prevents victims from receiving financial assistance when they need it most.^[243]

7.142 Stakeholders told the Commission that delays in financial assistance have a significant impact on victims.^[244] The Commission heard that waiting for long periods of time to receive assistance can cause victims distress^[245] and may be re-traumatising.^[246] In this regard, delay experienced in the existing system can itself be a source of re-traumatisation for victims. The Office of the Victims of Crime Commissioner submitted that it receives a large number of complaints in relation to delays in the VOCAT process.^[247]

7.143 In its 2015–16 Annual Report, VOCAT raised concerns about its ability to meet demand, concluding that it faces ‘challenges in keeping pace with the increased number of applications’.^[248]

7.144 Stakeholders and victims gave various timeframes for the finalisation of applications, ranging from between six months to three years.^[249] Of particular concern to a number of stakeholders were delays relating to interim awards.^[250]

7.145 Inner Melbourne Community Legal submitted that on average, it takes 6–12 months for an application to be finalised.^[251] Safe steps Family Violence Response Centre provided an example of an applicant waiting 10 months after her daughter had died before receiving an award for counselling, and gave another example of an applicant waiting 17 months for their award.^[252]

7.146 The Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria submitted that it has experienced delays of more than three years for an application to be finalised.^[253] In a consultation meeting with family violence and other advocacy organisations, the Commission was told the average application takes nine months but some applications can take up to two years to finalise.^[254]

7.147 In a consultation meeting with members of Domestic Violence Victoria, some participants told the Commission that applications can take between 14 and 15 months.^[255] The Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council told the Commission that variation applications for counselling sessions can take more than six months.^[256]

7.148 In addition, in a consultation meeting with legal professionals, the Commission was told that even after an application is finalised, it can take up to 46 weeks, sometimes even more, for the applicant to actually receive payment for a particular medical expense.^[257]

7.149 In contrast, some stakeholders have found interim awards a quick and useful way to deal with the delays encountered in relation to final awards.^[258] This was confirmed by VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria in their submission: ‘The ability to make interim awards of assistance ensures that the therapeutic experience for victims is not derailed by delay, and provides for the immediate financial needs of victims.’^[259]

7.150 While timeliness was raised as a significant concern by many stakeholders, VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria warned:

available metrics regarding average times taken to finalise an application are not a true measure of VoCAT’s responsiveness, as they do not reflect the role interim awards play in providing timely assistance to applications. Similarly, the increasing number of pending cases and overall throughput metrics does not directly correlate with VoCAT’s efficiency and responsiveness.^[260]

7.151 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria submitted that consideration should be given to establishing more meaningful metrics to assess VOCAT’s timeliness, including recognition of delays driven by factors outside of the Tribunal’s control such as the outcome of criminal investigations, trials or inquests or delay in the provision of necessary documentation.^[261]

7.152 While the Commission notes the importance of data providing a more comprehensive picture of the factors that affect timeliness, it is also important to recognise that producing meaningful data is part of the effective administration of any scheme. The Commission notes that VOCAT does not report on reasons for delay, including whether matters are delayed for beneficial reasons, or as a result of legal or administrative delays.

7.153 Timeliness of VOCAT awards has also been raised in a number of relevant reviews and research reports. In June 2017, the Victorian Community Safety Trustee released an interim report on the implementation of the Victorian Government’s Community Safety Statement. In that report, delays in relation to VOCAT applications were noted:

Currently, on average, it takes around nine months to finalise an application and some matters span more than two years. If the approach is “victims first”, then the current process warrants review in the interests of quick resolution for victims.^[262]

7.154 A number of further reviews and research found similar delays in relation to VOCAT:

• Research conducted by Women’s Legal Service Victoria in 2017 for its Rebuilding Strength project found that a majority of legal practitioners surveyed had experienced delay during the VOCAT process which they considered resulted in negative impacts on client recovery.^[263]

• Victims Support Agency research in 2011 found at least two cases of sexual assault victims waiting for around 12 months for a VOCAT award for further counselling.^[264]

• Research by Whittlesea Community Legal Service in 2011 suggested that the average amount of time taken to resolve a case was 12 months or more.^[265]

• VOCAT’s review of the pilot Koori List in 2011 found that ‘because [process] does take such a long time … the Tribunal process holds people back … they can’t get on with their recovery while their application is still being processed’.^[266]

• A Discussion Paper in 2009 by the then-Department of Justice stated: ‘a final decision can take a long time, and waiting times are increasing as the number of VOCAT cases increases’.^[267]

7.155 By comparison, in other Australian jurisdictions much quicker turnaround times are achieved under other schemes. In New South Wales, the transition from a court-based scheme to an administrative scheme resulted in assistance being provided in just under three months compared to over two years under the former court-based scheme.^[268]

7.156 Similarly, under Queensland’s administrative scheme, the Commission was told that typical turn-arounds on applications have been:^[269]

• three weeks for funeral and interim applications

• three months for primary victims

• six months for secondary victims.

7.157 Research suggests the more quickly victims can receive support and assistance, the better their chances of recovery.^[270] Conversely, delays can have counter-therapeutic effects on victims.^[271] Moreover, research suggests the timeliness of financial assistance decisions directly correlates to a victim’s overall satisfaction with the financial assistance process.^[272]

7.158 While VOCAT does not consider case ‘throughput’ as directly correlating with scheme responsiveness,^[273] many stakeholders and victims consider the timeliness of VOCAT as highly problematic. This experience is confirmed by the research literature^[274] and is borne out in the experiences of other Australian jurisdictions which have addressed the issue of timeliness through replacement of court-based financial assistance schemes by introducing new models of state-funded financial assistance with an administrative basis.

Fair and equitable/consistent and predictable procedures and decisions

7.159 The extent to which the existing scheme is fair and equitable was linked by stakeholders with the extent to which current practices and decisions are consistent and predictable, and the extent to which the current process is transparent.

7.160 Inconsistency and lack of transparency in VOCAT’s decision making was raised as an issue by a significant number of stakeholders.^[275] Stakeholders told the Commission that applicants who have experienced similar crimes and similar injuries do not necessarily receive similar awards of assistance from VOCAT^[276] and that different outcomes often depend on the personality or attitude of the magistrate.^[277] In one consultation, a participant described the existing scheme system as a ‘lottery’,^[278] with inconsistency a particular issue in rural and regional areas.^[279]

7.161 Schembri & Co Lawyers submitted that the VOCAA may provide too much discretion which can lead to inconsistency in practice, procedure and final awards.^[280] The Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria submitted that the high level of discretion afforded decision makers can sometimes result in Aboriginal clients being subjected to unnecessary questioning or requests for further evidence.^[281]

7.162 Some victim support agencies suggested to the Commission that inconsistency in approach can impact on a victim’s experience of the process,^[282] with one agency suggesting that when victims become aware that other victims in similar circumstances received a different award, it can result in some victims feeling ‘less worthy’.^[283]

7.163 Some stakeholders submitted that inconsistency in decision making was the product of judicial discretion^[284] as well as the lack of oversight in relation to the judiciary.^[285] However, Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers submitted inconsistencies in judicial-decision are ‘going to happen and cannot be avoided’.^[286]

7.164 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria submitted that the use of generalist Magistrates’ Court registry staff has meant that specialist VOCAT expertise is difficult to maintain and build on. The submission also noted that the diffused nature of the existing scheme, which operates across 51 locations, reduces predictability and transparency in decision making, and that a lack of specialist expertise results in difficulties in maintaining oversight of practice.^[287]

7.165 For some stakeholders, this propensity for inconsistency does not outweigh the benefits of judicial discretion^[288] because such discretion enables a flexible approach that accords with the diversity of victim needs.^[289] In this regard, some stakeholders cautioned against changing to a predictable ‘tick and flick’^[290] or ‘tick the box’^[291] administrative model which some stakeholders considered cannot offer an individualised approach to victim recovery.

7.166 The Commission was told that inconsistency is compounded by the lack of transparency and accountability for decisions due to lack of data collection and reporting—both for individual decisions and as a scheme. A number of concerns were raised about VOCAT not providing comprehensive statements of reasons,^[292] clearly summarising its reasons for decisions,^[293] or advising victims which magistrate made a decision.^[294]

7.167 The Victorian Council of Social Service raised concerns that when hearings are not conducted, little information is publicly available about the reasons for decisions.^[295] Knowmore also submitted that VOCAT should have to publish de-identified reasons for decisions where a matter has been determined on the papers.^[296]

7.168 Concerns about transparency and consistency in the VOCAT process are not new. In a submission to the then-Victorian Department of Justice’s 2009 review of victim compensation, the Federation of Community Legal Centres stated that there was a need for more transparency and equity in the VOCAT process.^[297] The then-Department of Justice also acknowledged in its 2009 discussion paper that ‘the decentralized nature of VOCAT across the state contributes to variations in processes and different trends in decision making’.^[298]

7.169 Similarly, research conducted by Whittlesea Community Legal Services in 2011 found that the lack of written reasons for decisions made it difficult to gather evidence regarding the operation of VOCAT and therefore even more difficult to educate the legal profession about it.^[299]

7.170 While all hearings conducted by VOCAT are digitally recorded, there is no such process for determinations made on the papers even though the majority of applications are determined on the papers and without hearing.^[300] Written decisions are not publicly available—the only decisions available to the public relate to review decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. These reviews are rare (only eight reviews were conducted in 2016–17).^[301]

Easy to understand and does not require legal support

7.171 The Commission was told that the current process is not easy for victims to navigate or understand. While some of the complexity relates to the technical requirements of the VOCAA such as eligibility, proof of injury and causation,^[302] there are also broader structural issues that result in the current process being complex and difficult for victims to understand.

7.172 For example, stakeholders said that VOCAT was not an easy process for victims to navigate without legal representation.^[303] The scheme’s reliance on lawyers was viewed by some as a structural barrier to accessibility of the scheme for many victims.^[304] Some stakeholders suggested it would be ‘virtually impossible’ to navigate the VOCAT system without a lawyer^[305] or that ‘most victims’ would require a lawyer to complete the paperwork.^[306] Some suggested VOCAT was a ‘bureaucratic nightmare’ and most victims do not know how to access it.^[307]

7.173 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria agreed that there is a perception—and practical reality for some victims—that the existing scheme is not simple:

Victims may be deterred from seeking financial support because of a perception (and reality for some) that the system is too complex to navigate on their own, and that legal representation is essential. This is particularly the case for victims from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities, who often face the additional burden of insufficiently accessible information.^[308]

7.174 The legalistic nature of the VOCAT process has been previously identified in research by the Victims Support Agency: ‘The most common problems with the process of obtaining counselling through VOCAT can broadly be associated with the need to comply with the requirements of a legal system’.^[309]

7.175 Other stakeholders considered the structure of VOCAT as part of the court system as a practical barrier due to its fragmentation from the rest of the support system.^[310]

7.176 Once again, these findings reinforce previous research. For example, Victims Support Agency research has found that many victims want one single point of contact and feel frustrated by the separation of victim support and financial assistance.^[311] Research conducted by Elaine Wedlock and Jacki Tapley has found:

One of the fundamental problems regarding crime victims is that there is no one agency taking responsibility for them, instead the journey of the victim involves varying degrees of contact from a range of agencies at differing stages in the process.^[312]

7.177 Additionally, research has found that victims find the process of seeking variation of an award to obtain further counselling complicated by the need for multiple visits to lawyers.^[313] The complexity of the variation process adds to victims’ experience of the VOCAT process, increases delays and affects continuity in services such as counselling.

7.178 The then-Victorian Department of Justice’s 2009 review of state-funded financial assistance found the VOCAA to be ‘complex and difficult for victims to understand’,^[314] compounded by difficulties finding appropriate legal representation.^[315]

Commission’s conclusions and recommendations

7.179 This part of the chapter presents the Commission’s conclusions in relation to whether the existing scheme is meeting the eight reference objectives.

7.180 Before turning to specific matters relating to the reference objectives, the Commission first acknowledges that, as evidenced throughout this chapter’s discussion, stakeholders expressed varying views on victims’ experiences of the VOCAT process, as did individual victims consulted.

7.181 These variations were reflected in the written submissions received, and in the views expressed during consultations, where the Commission was told about positive and negative experiences of VOCAT, particularly in relation to the potentially therapeutic aspects of the existing scheme and victims’ experiences of the judicial hearing process.^[316]

7.182 These variations are also reflected in relevant research and literature. For example, research by Clark with victims of sexual assault found that for some participants, VOCAT was ‘their primary means of securing justice, for others it was of little significance, and in some instances it resulted in further harm’.^[317] Similarly, research by the Victims Support Agency found ‘mixed’ views among research participants about the VOCAT hearing process:

Comments about the VOCAT hearing were mixed. While many participants made positive comments about Tribunal Members and felt acknowledged and validated by the hearing … some participants felt distressed by having to recount details of the crime they experienced. One participant was distressed by the Tribunal member’s comments.^[318]

7.183 Academic literature suggests that a diversity of experiences in such schemes is ‘predictable’, given matters can vary significantly in their complexity and magnitude, and because people differ in their injuries, circumstances and expectations.^[319]

7.184 While noting the varied circumstances of individuals, research nonetheless indicates the importance of the overall process being procedurally fair, easy and timely for victims,^[320] emphasising that compensation schemes should be designed to minimise stress and delays because stressful processes can have a negative impact on claimants’ health.^[321] Victim experiences of VOCAT described to the Commission, and in research literature, suggest there are a number of limitations to the existing scheme which could induce stress in victims of crime.

Maximise therapeutic effect and minimise trauma

7.185 As outlined above, a number of stakeholders have emphasised the potentially therapeutic effect of a judicial model in which victims are able to be acknowledged at a hearing by a judicial officer,^[322] particularly where a criminal matter has not progressed.^[323] However, other stakeholders have said that the existing scheme is not therapeutic,^[324] victim-centred^[325] or trauma-informed.^[326]

7.186 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria acknowledged the potential for the existing scheme to be therapeutic, while noting some current processes may not always maximise therapeutic effect: ‘While many victims who opt for a hearing find it to be a transformative experience, the hearing process could be more trauma-informed.’^[327]

7.187 Although the Commission acknowledges there was a divergence of views in relation to the therapeutic effect of VOCAT, given the significant concerns raised about some victims’ experiences of the VOCAT process, the Commission considers that the existing scheme’s ability to minimise trauma for all victims is limited.

7.188 Of particular concern is the current provisions of the VOCAA relating to alleged perpetrator notification and appearance outlined above. As discussed in Chapter 6, the Commission considers these provisions to be counter-productive to a victims’ recovery process, noting widespread stakeholder concern that such provisions often result in victims electing not to pursue a VOCAT application because of the chance of the perpetrator being notified.^[328]

7.189 The Commission has reached this conclusion, notwithstanding the positive experiences of some victims,^[329] because of significant concerns of stakeholders that the existing scheme is not therapeutic,^[330] victim-centred^[331] or trauma-informed,^[332] and because for some victims, the VOCAT process feels adversarial^[333] and therefore makes them ‘feel like a criminal’,^[334] ‘judged’ and that they have to ‘justify their emotions’.^[335] Accordingly, the Commission considers on balance that the existing scheme does not maximise therapeutic effect and minimise trauma for all victims of crime.

Efficient and sustainable for the state

7.190 In relation to efficiency and sustainability for the state, the Commission considers that while there may be some benefits to using the existing Magistrates’ Court infrastructure to reduce the operating costs of VOCAT, that having Victoria’s busiest court subsidise VOCAT may no longer be the most efficient and sustainable model for delivering state-funded financial assistance because:

• Increasing demand in the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction has led to some magistrates struggling to cope with rising caseloads.^[336]

• The VOCAT workload is one of the many daily competing priorities across the Magistrates’ Court and, in this context, VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria stated that court appearances in the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction must necessarily take precedence over the administration of VOCAT matters.^[337]

7.191 The precarious nature of this subsidised funding and staffing model is best illustrated by the delays experienced by victims, discussed in more detail below. Issues of delay in relation to VOCAT awards are not surprising, given the increased demand on the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction, and the ‘dual’ responsibilities of magistrates who may need to prioritise court appearances over VOCAT matters. Given these demand challenges and their impact on magistrates’ workloads and VOCAT timeliness,^[338] the Commission considers that the existing scheme no longer represents the most efficient and sustainable model for state-funded financial assistance.

Timely decision making

7.192 The Commission considers that the delays experienced by victims in receiving VOCAT awards—both interim and final—exacerbate some of the more stressful processes of the existing scheme outlined above.

7.193 Stakeholders and victims told the Commission about various timeframes for applications to be finalised, ranging from between six months to three years.^[339]

7.194 VOCAT’s ability to produce timely outcomes for victims has also been raised in research reports. In June 2017, the Victorian Community Safety Trustee released an interim report noting delays in the receipt of VOCAT awards.^[340] Previous research reports also raised similar concerns about delays in VOCAT awards, including research conducted by Women’s Legal Service Victoria in 2017,^[341] Victims Support Agency research in 2011,^[342] research by Whittlesea Community Legal Service in 2011,^[343] VOCAT research in 2011^[344] and the then-Department of Justice research in 2009.^[345]

7.195 The delays many victims experience in receiving VOCAT awards are particularly significant given research suggests that the more quickly victims can receive support and assistance, the better their chances of recovery.^[346] Conversely, delays can have counter-therapeutic effects.^[347]

7.196 While VOCAT does not consider case ‘throughput’ as directly correlating with scheme responsiveness,^[348] many stakeholders and victims consider the timeliness of VOCAT awards as having significant impacts on victim outcomes,^[349] causing distress^[350] and re-traumatising victims.^[351]

7.197 Accordingly, given the issues raised during consultations and in written submissions, along with previous research pointing to VOCAT delays outlined above, the Commission considers that the existing scheme is not producing timely responses for all victims of crime.

Fair and equitable/consistent and predictable procedures and decisions

7.198 Inconsistency and lack of transparency in VOCAT’s decision making was raised as an issue by a significant number of stakeholders.^[352]

7.199 Some stakeholders submitted that applicants who have experienced similar crimes and similar injuries do not necessarily receive similar awards of assistance from VOCAT^[353] and that there can be inconsistency in VOCAT decision making.^[354]

7.200 In their written submission, VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria submitted that under the existing scheme there:

is a risk of inconsistent decision making in relation to awards and interpretation of broad areas of discretion for multiple decision makers with varying levels of VoCAT experience, operating across 51 locations. This can foster unrealistic expectations on the part of victims about likely award outcomes, and the perception that the system is not fair.^[355]

7.201 The Commission notes that concerns about transparency and fairness in the VOCAT process are not new. Concerns were previously raised in a submission to the then-Victorian Department of Justice’s 2009 review of victim compensation^[356] and in research by the Whittlesea Community Legal Services.^[357] The then-Department of Justice also acknowledged in its 2009 discussion paper on the state-funded financial assistance scheme that ‘the decentralized nature of VOCAT across the state contributes to variations in processes and different trends in decision making’.^[358]

7.202 Accordingly, the Commission considers that on balance, the existing scheme may not be fair and equitable for all victims and may be producing inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes which impact some victims’ experiences of the VOCAT process.

Process easy to understand and legal representation not required

7.203 Stakeholders said that the existing scheme is not easy for victims to understand and that VOCAT is not an easy process for victims to navigate without legal representation.^[359] In fact, some stakeholders suggested it would be ‘virtually impossible’ to navigate the VOCAT system without a lawyer.^[360]

7.204 These stakeholder views are also supported by Victorian research and academic literature, which suggested the process is confusing for victims, particularly without a lawyer.^[361] In its 2009 review of state-funded financial assistance, the then-Victorian Department of Justice also stated that the VOCAA was ‘complex and difficult for victims to understand’,^[362] and such complexity was compounded by difficulties experienced by victims in finding appropriate legal representation.^[363]

7.205 Accordingly, the Commission considers that the existing scheme is neither simple nor easy for victims to understand, and that legal representation is currently required for most, if not all, VOCAT applications, based on stakeholders’ views that navigating the system without a lawyer would be difficult, if not ‘impossible’.^[364]

The need for a new model

7.206 As noted above, there have been relatively few empirical studies into VOCAT’s operations or effectiveness over the past 20 years. The Commission’s assessment of the existing scheme has therefore considered stakeholder views, existing research conducted into VOCAT’s operations and victims’ experiences of VOCAT. The Commission has also considered the experiences and approaches of other jurisdictions as a comparison. In using a variety of data sources, key themes have emerged about VOCAT’s operations across written submissions, in consultations and in the available research. These key themes indicated that:

• While some victims may experience therapeutic outcomes, the existing scheme does not maximise therapeutic effect, nor minimise trauma, for all victims of crime because some victims can be distressed and traumatised by the adversarial nature of the VOCAT process, by how hearings may be conducted and by delays experienced in receiving awards.

• Although the existing scheme may produce cost efficiencies through Magistrates’ Court subsidisation, in the context of increasing demand in the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction and magistrates’ difficulties managing rising caseloads, this may no longer be efficient and sustainable for the state.

• Victims are experiencing significant delays in receiving VOCAT awards, affecting their ability to recover from crime.

• Victims experience inconsistent VOCAT outcomes, resulting in a lack of predictability, suggesting the existing model may not be fair and equitable for all victims, nor consistent and predictable.

• The current process under the VOCAA is not simple nor easy to understand and, in this context, most victims would find it difficult, if not impossible to navigate the system without a lawyer.

7.207 Accordingly, the Commission considers that on balance, a new model is required if the reference objectives are to be met.

7.208 Chapter 8 explores possible models of assistance. This includes a reformed judicial model, as has been proposed by VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s’ Court of Victoria,^[365] as well as alternative models of state-funded financial assistance, such as administrative or quasi-administrative models.

19.2

1. ‘The purpose of this Act is to provide assistance to victims of crime’: Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) s 1.

   ↑

2. See, generally, introduction to Part Three in Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, Supplementary Consultation Paper (2017) 176.

   ↑

3. Ibid 180.

   ↑

4. Ibid 177–8.

   ↑

5. Victims Support Agency (Vic), Standards for the Provision of Services to Victims of Crime in Victoria (2011) 5.

   ↑

6. Elaine Wedlock and Jacki Tapley, What Works in Supporting Victims of Crime: A Rapid Evidence Assessment (Victims’ Commissioner and University of Portsmouth, 2016) 8.

   ↑

7. Victorian Law Reform Commission, The Role of Victims of Crime in the Criminal Trial Process—Who Are Victims of Crime and What Are Their Criminal Justice Needs and Experiences? Information Paper 2 (2015) 4; Bree Cook, Fiona David and Anna Grant, Victims’ Needs, Victims’ Rights: Policies and Programs for Victims of Crime in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1999) 39.

   ↑

8. Tamar Dinisman and Ania Moroz, Understanding Victims of Crime: The Impact of the Crime and Support Needs (Victim Support, 2017) 4–10; Bree Cook, Fiona David and Anna Grant, Victims’ Needs, Victims’ Rights: Policies and Programs for Victims of Crime in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1999) 18; Anna Gekoski et al, ‘Interviewing Women Bereaved by Homicide: Reports of Secondary Victimisation by the Criminal Justice System’ (2013) 19(3) International Review of Victimology 307, 308.

   ↑

9. Tamar Dinisman and Ania Moroz, Understanding Victims of Crime: The Impact of the Crime and Support Needs (Victim Support, 2017) 10; Bree Cook, Fiona David and Anna Grant, Victims’ Needs, Victims’ Rights: Policies and Programs for Victims of Crime in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1999) 16.

   ↑

10. Tamar Dinisman and Ania Moroz, Understanding Victims of Crime: The Impact of the Crime and Support Needs (Victim Support, 2017) 8; Bree Cook, Fiona David and Anna Grant, Victims’ Needs, Victims’ Rights: Policies and Programs for Victims of Crime in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1999) 35.

    ↑

11. Victorian Law Reform Commission, The Role of Victims of Crime in the Criminal Trial Process, Report No 34 (2016) xiii; Tamar Dinisman and Ania Moroz, Understanding Victims of Crime: The Impact of the Crime and Support Needs (Victim Support, 2017) 11.

    ↑

12. Tamar Dinisman and Ania Moroz, Understanding Victims of Crime: The Impact of the Crime and Support Needs (Victim Support, 2017) 11.

    ↑

13. Ibid 12.

    ↑

14. Bree Cook, Fiona David and Anna Grant, Victims’ Needs, Victims’ Rights: Policies and Programs for Victims of Crime in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1999) 49.

    ↑

15. Ibid.

    ↑

16. Elaine Wedlock and Jacki Tapley, What Works in Supporting Victims of Crime: A Rapid Evidence Assessment (Victims’ Commissioner and University of Portsmouth, 2016) 10.

    ↑

17. See, eg, Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Standards for the Provision of Services to Victims of Crime in Victoria (2011).

    ↑

18. Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic) s 6(2).

    ↑

19. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2015–16 (2016) 17.

    ↑

20. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, Supplementary Consultation Paper (2017) 180.

    ↑

21. Submissions 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Children’s Court of Victoria); Consultation 20 (Academics).

    ↑

22. Submission 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers).

    ↑

23. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

24. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

    ↑

25. Consultation 20 (Academics).

    ↑

26. Ibid.

    ↑

27. Submission 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program).

    ↑

28. Submissions 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 57 (Victims of Crime Assistance League); Consultations 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 20 (Academics), 6 (Victims’ Advocacy Organisations).

    ↑

29. Consultations 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies).

    ↑

30. Submission 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre).

    ↑

31. Submission 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria).

    ↑

32. Submission 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers); Consultations 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee), 20 (Academics), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

    ↑

33. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

    ↑

34. Submission 18 (cohealth).

    ↑

35. Ibid.

    ↑

36. Ibid.

    ↑

37. Submission 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

    ↑

38. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

    ↑

39. Consultation 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

    ↑

40. Consultation 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee).

    ↑

41. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

    ↑

42. Consultation 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee).

    ↑

43. Submission 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

    ↑

44. Submission 39 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

    ↑

45. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 43 (knowmore), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultation 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee).

    ↑

46. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

47. Submission 45 (Daniel Myles et al).

    ↑

48. Ibid.

    ↑

49. Submissions 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 43 (knowmore).

    ↑

50. Submission 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program).

    ↑

51. Submission 47 (Centre for Innovative Justice).

    ↑

52. Submission 43 (knowmore).

    ↑

53. Consultations 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice), 20 (Academics).

    ↑

54. Submission 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program).

    ↑

55. Consultation 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals).

    ↑

56. Submission 36 (Name withheld).

    ↑

57. Submission 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive).

    ↑

58. Submissions 13 (Adviceline Injury Lawyers), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 3 (Legal Professionals—Community Legal Centres), 10 (Regional Consultation—Morwell Victim Support Agencies).

    ↑

59. Submission 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al); Consultations 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee), 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid (Gippsland), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

    ↑

60. Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies).

    ↑

61. Consultations 3 (Legal Professionals—Community Legal Centres), 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals).

    ↑

62. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, Supplementary Consultation Paper (2017) 182, 202.

    ↑

63. Ibid 182.

    ↑

64. Submissions 1 (Judicial Advisory Group on Family Violence), 3 (Director of Public Prosecutions Victoria), 4 (Crime Victims Support Association), 9 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation), 10 (Eastern Metropolitan Regional Family Violence Partnership), 11 (Seniors Rights Victoria), 12 (Jesuit Social Services), 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 16 (Project Respect), 17 (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare), 20 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner), 24 (Darebin Community Legal Centre), 32 (Australian Psychological Society), 33 (Eastern Community Legal Centre), 34 (Dr Cassandra Cross), 35 (Brockway Legal), 36 (Name withheld), 39 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service), 41 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 45 (Daniel Myles et al), 46 (Victoria Legal Aid), 52 (Slavery Links), 54 (Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby), 55 (Jacqueline Simpkin), 56 (Sandra Betts), 58 (Judicial Advisory Group on Family Violence Supplementary Submission).

    ↑

65. Seventeen (17) out of 60 written submissions supported a new model (administrative or ‘hybrid’), with 12 out of 60 written submissions supporting the retention of a judicial model. The remaining written submissions did not comment on the model or did not express a definitive view, with the exclusion of confidential submissions which have not been included in this data. The Commission notes that some written submissions had co-signatories or represented the views of a number of member organisations meaning some single submissions represent the views of more than one individual or organisation.

    ↑

66. Submissions 7 (Dr Kate Seear et al), 13 (Adviceline Injury Lawyers), 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers), 22 (YourLawyer), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 30 (CASA Forum), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 43 (knowmore), 47 (Centre for Innovative Justice), 53 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal), 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

67. For ease of categorisation, the Commission uses the terms ‘victim assistance’ or ‘victim advocacy’ organisation to include victim-led groups or initiatives, individual victims, as well as organisations who support victims or advocate on their behalf, and includes Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 6 (Forgetmenot Foundation Inc.), 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 57 (Victims of Crime Assistance League).

    ↑

68. The following submissions supported an administrative model: Submissions 2 (The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 6 (Forgetmenot Foundation Inc.), 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 25 (Public Health Association of Australia), 26 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service), 27 (Name withheld), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 57 (Victims of Crime Assistance League).

    ↑

69. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 6 (Forgetmenot Foundation Inc.), 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 27 (Name withheld), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 57 (Victims of Crime Assistance League).

    ↑

70. Submissions 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 30 (CASA Forum).

    ↑

71. Submissions 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 53 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal).

    ↑

72. Submission 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers).

    ↑

73. Submission 22 (YourLawyer).

    ↑

74. Submission 47 (Centre for Innovative Justice); Consultation 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

    ↑

75. Submission 47 (Centre for Innovative Justice).

    ↑

76. Consultation 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee).

    ↑

77. Submissions 13 (Adviceline Injury Lawyers), 22 (YourLawyer), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members), 10 (Regional Consultation—Morwell Victim Support Agencies), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice), 20 (Academics).

    ↑

78. Submissions 22 (YourLawyer), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers); Consultations 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies).

    ↑

79. Consultation 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies).

    ↑

80. Submission 51 (Law Institute of Victoria); Consultation 3 (Legal Professionals—Community Legal Centres).

    ↑

81. Submission 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al); Consultation 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals).

    ↑

82. Submission 13 (Adviceline Injury Lawyers).

    ↑

83. Submission 30 (CASA Forum).

    ↑

84. Submission 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal Centre).

    ↑

85. Submission 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers).

    ↑

86. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

87. Submission 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al).

    ↑

88. Submissions 22 (YourLawyer), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al).

    ↑

89. Submission 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers).

    ↑

90. Consultation 20 (Academics).

    ↑

91. Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

    ↑

92. Consultation 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice).

    ↑

93. Consultation 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

    ↑

94. Ibid.

    ↑

95. Consultations 10 (Regional Consultation—Morwell Victim Support Agencies), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

    ↑

96. Consultation 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce). However, it should be noted that another participant also warned against simplistic contrasts being made between administrative and judicial models.

    ↑

97. Consultation 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice).

    ↑

98. Consultation 20 (Academics).

    ↑

99. Consultation 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies).

    ↑

100. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers), 22 (YourLawyer), 30 (CASA Forum), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 46 (Victoria Legal Aid); Consultations 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 17 (Family Violence Diverse Communities and Intersectionality Working Group).

     ↑

101. Submission 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers).

     ↑

102. Submission 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal).

     ↑

103. Submissions 22 (YourLawyer), 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers).

     ↑

104. Submission 30 (CASA Forum).

     ↑

105. Submission 7 (Dr Kate Seear et al).

     ↑

106. Consultation 10 (Regional Consultation—Morwell Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

107. Submissions 22 (YourLawyer), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al).

     ↑

108. Submission 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al).

     ↑

109. The New South Wales scheme is currently under legislative review. A number of submissions to the review have raised concerns about the removal of legal costs under the scheme. See, eg, Community Legal Centres NSW, Submission to New South Wales Department of Justice, Review of the Victims Rights and Support Act, 29 July 2016, 23.

     ↑

110. For example, in the Australian Capital Territory, the scheme still reimburses lawyers up to $1123 for an application and $2246 for an appeal or review process: Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Regulation 2016 (ACT) r 12. In Queensland, victims may be granted assistance of up to $500 for legal costs: Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s 38(2).

     ↑

111. ‘Quasi-administrative’ was referred to in the supplementary terms of reference (although not defined) and referred to in a number of stakeholder submissions but the term ‘quasi-administrative’ was used by different stakeholders to refer to various ‘hybrid’ administrative/judicial schemes, such as administrative decision making coupled with judicial hearings. In that regard, the term ‘quasi-judicial’ meant different things to different stakeholders.

     ↑

112. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service); Consultation 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

113. Submission 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

114. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 20 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria); Consultation 20 (Academics).

     ↑

115. Submission 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program).

     ↑

116. Submissions 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 26 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service); Consultation 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

117. Consultation 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members).

     ↑

118. Consultation 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland).

     ↑

119. Consultation 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

     ↑

120. Consultation 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT).

     ↑

121. Consultations 17 (Family Violence Diverse Communities and Intersectionality Working Group), 18 (PartnerSPEAK).

     ↑

122. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 27 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

123. Consultation 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

124. Submission 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service).

     ↑

125. For example, criminal matters, civil matters and family law matters: Consultation 10 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members).

     ↑

126. Consultation 18 (PartnerSPEAK). It should be noted, however, that the individuals PartnerSPEAK advocates for (partners of perpetrators of online sexual abuse) would not currently fall within the definition of ‘victim’ under the VOCAA.

     ↑

127. Consultation 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

128. Ibid.

     ↑

129. Consultation 27 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

130. Consultation 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland). Chapter 15 discusses the circumstances in which VOCAT is required to consider an applicant’s criminal behaviour under section 45 of the VOCAA.

     ↑

131. Consultation 20 (Academics).

     ↑

132. Submission 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

133. Submissions 2 (The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 18 (cohealth), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria).

     ↑

134. Submissions 2 (The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program).

     ↑

135. Consultation 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT).

     ↑

136. Consultation 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

     ↑

137. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland),12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce), 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW); Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

138. Submission 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service).

     ↑

139. Consultations 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

     ↑

140. Consultation 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland).

     ↑

141. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

     ↑

142. Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

143. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

144. Submission 20 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria).

     ↑

145. Consultation 27 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

146. Consultations 3 (Legal Professionals—Community Legal Centres), 10 (Regional Consultation—Morwell Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

147. Consultation 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

     ↑

148. Submission 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service); Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 27 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

149. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

     ↑

150. Submission 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service).

     ↑

151. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

     ↑

152. Ibid.

     ↑

153. Submissions 2 (The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 18 (cohealth), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

154. Submissions 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

155. Consultations 1 (Victim Assist Queensland), 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT).

     ↑

156. Consultation 20 (Academics).

     ↑

157. Submission 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council). Other stakeholders agreed that holistic support should be provided from the time the crime occurs: Submission 27 (Name withheld); Consultation 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee).

     ↑

158. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

     ↑

159. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 26 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service).

     ↑

160. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 18 (cohealth), 26 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultations 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies), 20 (Academics).

     ↑

161. Submission 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program).

     ↑

162. Submissions 2 (The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultations 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

163. Submissions 27 (Name withheld), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers).

     ↑

164. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

165. Consultation 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

166. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals).

     ↑

167. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

     ↑

168. Consultation 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

     ↑

169. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

170. Consultation 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals).

     ↑

171. Submissions 2 (The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

172. Consultations 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland), 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals).

     ↑

173. Submissions 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 27 (Name withheld), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultations 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies), 20 (Academics).

     ↑

174. Consultations 1 (Victim Assist Queensland), 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW). Improvements in timeliness in New South Wales were also noted in Consultation 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria) and Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

175. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 9 (Alannah & Madeline Foundation), 10 (Eastern Metropolitan Regional Family Violence Partnership), 17 (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare), 22 (YourLawyer), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 32 (Australian Psychological Society), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

176. ‘Dedicated’ relates to the decision maker being appointed specifically to do such work and provided sufficient resources to undertake the work. This is in contrast to the existing model where all magistrates are required, as part of their judicial duties, to undertake VOCAT work in addition to their usual Magistrates’ Court of Victoria matters.

     ↑

177. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 17 (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare), 22 (YourLawyer), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 30 (CASA Forum), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 33 (Eastern Community Legal Centre), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 53 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal).

     ↑

178. Not all stakeholders thought this opportunity to be heard necessitated a judicial or court ‘hearing’. See, eg, Submissions 13 (Adviceline Injury Lawyers), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria). See comments relating to the importance of hearings in Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 43 (knowmore), 46 (Victoria Legal Aid), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

179. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 13 (Adviceline Injury Lawyers), 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 18 (cohealth), 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers), 22 (YourLawyer), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 30 (CASA Forum), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 43 (knowmore), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria). It should be noted that there was also some support for reducing reliance on lawyers, discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.

     ↑

180. Submissions 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

181. See, eg, Emma Smallwood, Stepping Stones: Legal Barriers to Economic Equality after Family Violence–Report on the Stepping Stones Project (Women’s Legal Service Victoria, 2015), in which findings in relation to VOCAT were limited; Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) in which findings primarily focused on the provision of VOCAT-funded counselling; Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Capacity Building Project, Discussion Paper (Whittlesea Community Connections, 2011), which was a relatively small research study; Hayley Catherine Clark, A Fair Way to Go: Criminal Justice for Victim/Survivors of Sexual Assault (PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, 2011), in which discussion of VOCAT was a relatively small component and only related to the experiences of victims of sexual assault; Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Koori VOCAT List Pilot, Review and Recommendations (2010) which only related to the operation of the pilot Koori List.

     ↑

182. This lack of publicly available data was also discussed in Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, Supplementary Consultation Paper (2017) 38, 163–4.

     ↑

183. J D W E Mulder, Compensation: The Victim’s Perspective (Wolf Legal Publishers, 2013) 36.

     ↑

184. Maarten Kunst et al, ‘Performance Evaluations and Victim Satisfaction with State Compensation for Violent Crime: A Prospective Study’ (2015) 32(19) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1, 3.

     ↑

185. Genevieve M Grant, ‘Claiming Justice in Injury Law’ (2015) 41(3) Monash University Law Review 618, 619.

     ↑

186. Robyn L Holder and Kathleen Daly, ‘Recognition, Reconnection, and Renewal: The Meaning of Money to Sexual Assault Survivors’ (2017) 24(1) International Review of Victimology 25, 28.

     ↑

187. As outlined in Chapter 4, these include Emma Smallwood, Stepping Stones: Legal Barriers to Economic Equality after Family Violence–Report on the Stepping Stones Project (Women’s Legal Service Victoria, 2015); Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011); Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Capacity Building Project, Discussion Paper (Whittlesea Community Connections, 2011); Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Best Practice Manual (Whittlesea Community Connections, 2011); Hayley Catherine Clark, A Fair Way to Go: Criminal Justice for Victim/Survivors of Sexual Assault (PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, 2011); Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Koori VOCAT List Pilot, Review and Recommendations (2010).

     ↑

188. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 23 (Johnstone and Reimer Lawyers), 29 Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 43 (knowmore).

     ↑

189. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

190. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal Centre), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 24 (Darebin Community Legal Centre), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 43 (knowmore); Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 27 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

191. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service); Consultation 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

192. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 20 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria); Consultation 20 (Academics).

     ↑

193. Submission 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

194. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

     ↑

195. Consultation 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland).

     ↑

196. Consultation 20 (Academics).

     ↑

197. Submission 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program).

     ↑

198. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

     ↑

199. Consultation 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

200. Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) s 34(2).

     ↑

201. A VOCAT practice direction requires VOCAT to first give the applicant an opportunity to be heard on whether perpetrator notification should occur: See Practice Direction No. 4 of 2008: Notification of Alleged Offenders and Third Parties.

     ↑

202. Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) s 35(1).

     ↑

203. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 10 (Eastern Metropolitan Regional Family Violence Partnership), 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 16 (Project Respect), 17 (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare), 20 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner), 26 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 33 (Eastern Community Legal Centre), 39 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service), 46 (Victoria Legal Aid), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals – Private Practice), 3 (Legal Professionals – Community Legal Centres), 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members), 12 (Regional Consultation – Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 13 (Regional Consultation – Mildura Legal Professionals), 14 (Chief Magistrates’ Family Violence Taskforce), 16 (Regional Consultation – Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

204. Consultation 15 (Regional Consultation – Ballarat Victim Support Agencies)

     ↑

205. Submission 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal).

     ↑

206. Submission 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal).

     ↑

207. Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 36.

     ↑

208. Ibid 59–60.

     ↑

209. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Koori VOCAT List Pilot, Review and Recommendations (2010) 27.

     ↑

210. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

211. Maarten Kunst et al, ‘Performance Evaluations and Victim Satisfaction with State Compensation for Violent Crime: A Prospective Study’ (2015) 32(19) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1, 10.

     ↑

212. Ibid 11. This study also highlighted the importance of the treatment by fund workers, information provision and perceptions of fairness.

     ↑

213. Hayley Catherine Clark, A Fair Way to Go: Criminal Justice for Victim/Survivors of Sexual Assault (PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, 2011) 117.

     ↑

214. Robyn L Holder and Kathleen Daly, ‘Recognition, Reconnection, and Renewal: The Meaning of Money to Sexual Assault Survivors’ (2017) 24(1) International Review of Victimology 25, 30.

     ↑

215. Ibid; Maarten Kunst et al, ‘Performance Evaluations and Victim Satisfaction with State Compensation for Violent Crime: A Prospective Study’ (2015) 32(19) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1, 10–11; Hayley Catherine Clark, A Fair Way to Go: Criminal Justice for Victim/Survivors of Sexual Assault (PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, 2011) 117.

     ↑

216. Maarten Kunst et al, ‘Performance Evaluations and Victim Satisfaction with State Compensation for Violent Crime: A Prospective Study’ (2015) 32(19) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1, 4.

     ↑

217. Betty Chan et al, ‘Support and Compensation: Lessons from Victims of Crime’ (Paper presented at the Actuaries Institute Injury Schemes Seminar, Gold Coast, 10–12 November 2013) 19.

     ↑

218. Department of Justice (Vic), Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards, Discussion Paper (2009) 42.

     ↑

219. See, eg, Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

220. Submission 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

221. Ibid.

     ↑

222. Consultation 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals).

     ↑

223. Submission 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal).

     ↑

224. Ibid.

     ↑

225. Ibid.

     ↑

226. Ibid.

     ↑

227. Ibid; Submissions 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 43 (knowmore).

     ↑

228. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

229. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

230. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce), 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals); Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

231. Submissions 2 (The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

232. Noel Towell and Adam Cooper, ‘Courtroom Drama: Magistrates’ Cry for Help as System Approaches “Crisis Point”’ The Age (online), 24 November 2017 <www.theage.com.au/victoria/courtroom-drama-magistrates-cry-for-help-as-system-approaches-crisis-point-20171108-gzhpde.html>.

     ↑

233. Noel Towell and Adam Cooper ‘Struggling Magistrates Cry for Help’ The Age (online), 2 April 2018 <www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/struggling-magistrates-cry-for-help-20180401-p4z7bh.html>.

     ↑

234. Submissions 2 (The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

235. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

236. See generally Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, In Summary: Evaluation of the Appropriateness and Sustainability of Victoria Legal Aid’s Summary Crime Program (2017) 22.

     ↑

237. Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Annual Report 2015–16, 13.

     ↑

238. Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, In Summary: Evaluation of the Appropriateness and Sustainability of Victoria Legal Aid’s Summary Crime Program (2017) xvii.

     ↑

239. Department of Justice (Vic), Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards, Discussion Paper (2009) 23.

     ↑

240. In 2018, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria established a wellness and wellbeing committee to help magistrates manage the workloads and stresses of the job. See, eg, Belinda Wilson, ‘Courts Under Pressure’ (2018) 92(1/2) Law Institute Journal 6; Noel Towell, Adam Cooper ‘Struggling Magistrates Cry for Help’ The Age (online), 2 April 2018 <www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/struggling-magistrates-cry-for-help-20180401-p4z7bh.html>.

     ↑

241. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

242. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 18 (cohealth), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 24 (Darebin Community Legal Centre), 27 (Name withheld), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 41 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 3 (Legal Professionals—Community Legal Centres), 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 6 (Victims’ Advocacy Organisations), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members), 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies). Some stakeholders told the Commission that they had not experienced significant delays, eg, Consultation 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals).

     ↑

243. Submissions 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

244. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 18 (cohealth), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria); Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

245. Submissions 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria, and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

246. Submissions 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

247. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

248. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2015–16 (2016) 9.

     ↑

249. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 43 (knowmore); Consultations 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members).

     ↑

250. Submissions 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 24 (Darebin Community Legal Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & YLC-391_Youth Gym Promo- July 18 (Facebook Post)), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultation 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

251. Submission 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal).

     ↑

252. Submission 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre).

     ↑

253. Submission 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

254. Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

255. Consultation 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members).

     ↑

256. Consultation 27 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

257. Consultation 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals).

     ↑

258. Consultations 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee), 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

259. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria, and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

260. Ibid.

     ↑

261. Ibid.

     ↑

262. Community Safety Trustee (Vic), Community Safety Trustee: First Progress Report—June 2017 (2017) 14.

     ↑

263. Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Rebuilding Strength—VOCAT Project: Practitioner Survey Preliminary Results (2017) (unpublished) 5–7.

     ↑

264. Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 33.

     ↑

265. Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Capacity Building Project, Discussion Paper (Whittlesea Community Connections, 2011) 71.

     ↑

266. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Koori VOCAT List Pilot, Review and Recommendations (2010) 32.

     ↑

267. Department of Justice (Vic), Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards, Discussion Paper (2009) 42.

     ↑

268. New South Wales Government, Submission No 11 to Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Issues Paper 7, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse, 2014, 5.

     ↑

269. Consultation 1 (Victim Assist Queensland). Queensland transitioned from a court-based scheme to an administrative scheme in 2009.

     ↑

270. Department of Attorney General and Justice (NSW), Review of the Victims Compensation Fund (PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia, 2012) 48.

     ↑

271. Bree Cook, Fiona David and Anna Grant, Victims’ Needs, Victims’ Rights: Policies and Programs for Victims of Crime in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1999) 69.

     ↑

272. Maarten Kunst et al, ‘Performance Evaluations and Victim Satisfaction with State Compensation for Violent Crime: A Prospective Study’ (2015) 32(19) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1, 10–11.

     ↑

273. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

274. See, eg, Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Rebuilding Strength—VOCAT Project: Practitioner Survey Preliminary Results (2017) (unpublished) 5; Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Capacity Building Project, Discussion Paper (Whittlesea Community Connections, 2011) 71; Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 33; Community Safety Trustee (Vic), Community Safety Trustee: First Progress Report—June 2017 (2017) 14.

     ↑

275. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 17 (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare), 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers), 27 (Name withheld), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 41 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 43 (knowmore), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies), 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

276. Submissions 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 43 (knowmore).

     ↑

277. Consultations 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies), 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

278. Consultation 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

279. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

280. Submission 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers).

     ↑

281. Submission 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

282. Submissions 30 (CASA Forum), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program).

     ↑

283. Submission 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program).

     ↑

284. Submission 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers).

     ↑

285. Submission 27 (Name withheld).

     ↑

286. Submission 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers).

     ↑

287. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

288. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers); Consultations 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

     ↑

289. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

290. Consultation 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce).

     ↑

291. Consultation 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

292. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 24 (Darebin Community Legal Centre).

     ↑

293. Submissions 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 26 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service).

     ↑

294. Submission 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal).

     ↑

295. Submission 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service).

     ↑

296. Submission 43 (knowmore).

     ↑

297. Federation of Community Legal Centres, Submission to Victorian Department of Justice, Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-Funded Awards, February 2010, 7.

     ↑

298. Department of Justice (Vic), Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards, Discussion Paper (2009) 42.

     ↑

299. Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Capacity Building Project, Discussion Paper (Whittlesea Community Connections, 2011) 27.

     ↑

300. In the 2016–17 financial year, only 14% of applications were determined at hearings: Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2016–17 (2017) 36.

     ↑

301. Ibid 61.

     ↑

302. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

303. Submissions 33 (Eastern Community Legal Centre), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 43 (knowmore), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 3 (Legal Professionals—Community Legal Centres), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

304. Consultation 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals).

     ↑

305. Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

306. Submission 18 (cohealth).

     ↑

307. Consultation 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

308. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

309. Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 59.

     ↑

310. Consultations 8 (Victims Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee), 20 (Academics).

     ↑

311. Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 35.

     ↑

312. Elaine Wedlock and Jacki Tapley, What Works in Supporting Victims of Crime: A Rapid Evidence Assessment (Victims’ Commissioner and University of Portsmouth, 2016) 25.

     ↑

313. Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 33.

     ↑

314. Department of Justice (Vic), Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards, Discussion Paper (2009) 18.

     ↑

315. Ibid 42.

     ↑

316. See, eg, Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria) and 43 (knowmore) on the potentially therapeutic aspects of the current approach. See also Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria) on the potentially distressing components of the current approach.

     ↑

317. Hayley Catherine Clark, A Fair Way to Go: Criminal Justice for Victim/Survivors of Sexual Assault (PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, 2011) 110.

     ↑

318. Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 59–60.

     ↑

319. Genevieve M Grant, ‘Claiming Justice in Injury Law’ (2015) 41(3) Monash University Law Review 618, 646.

     ↑

320. See, eg, Maarten Kunst et al, ‘Performance Evaluations and Victim Satisfaction with State Compensation for Violent Crime: A Prospective Study’ (2015) 32(19) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1, 11.

     ↑

321. Genevieve M Grant, ‘Claiming Justice in Injury Law’ (2015) 41(3) Monash University Law Review 618, 646.

     ↑

322. Submissions 13 (Adviceline Injury Lawyers), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria); Consultations 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members), 10 (Regional Consultation—Morwell Victim Support Agencies), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice), 20 (Academics).

     ↑

323. Submissions 22 (YourLawyer), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers); Consultations 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

324. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service); Consultation 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

325. Submission 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

326. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria); Consultation 20 (Academics).

     ↑

327. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

328. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 10 (Eastern Metropolitan Regional Family Violence Partnership), 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 16 (Project Respect), 17 (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare), 20 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner), 26 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 33 (Eastern Community Legal Centre), 39 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service), 46 (Victoria Legal Aid), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals – Private Practice), 3 (Legal Professionals – Community Legal Centres), 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members), 12 (Regional Consultation – Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 13 (Regional Consultation – Mildura Legal Professionals), 14 (Chief Magistrates’ Family Violence Taskforce), 16 (Regional Consultation – Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

329. See, eg, Submission 53 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal) for examples of positive experiences, and the following submissions also supporting the existing model: Submissions 7 (Dr Kate Seear et al), 13 (Adviceline Injury Lawyers), 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers), 22 (YourLawyer), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 28 (South Metropolitan Integrated Family Violence Executive), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 42 (Joint Submission Springvale Monash Legal Service et al), 47 (Centre for Innovative Justice), 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

330. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service); Consultation 24 (Community Safety Trustee).

     ↑

331. Submission 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council).

     ↑

332. Submissions 8 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council), 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria); Consultation 20 (Academics).

     ↑

333. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 27 (Victim Survivors Advisory Council).

     ↑

334. Consultation 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

     ↑

335. Submission 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service).

     ↑

336. Noel Towell and Adam Cooper, ‘Courtroom Drama: Magistrates’ Cry for Help as System Approaches “Crisis Point”’, The Age (online),
     
     24 November 2017 <www.theage.com.au/victoria/courtroom-drama-magistrates-cry-for-help-as-system-approaches-crisis-point-20171108-gzhpde.html>; Noel Towell and Adam Cooper ‘Struggling Magistrates Cry for Help’ The Age (online), 2 April 2018
     
     <www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/struggling-magistrates-cry-for-help-20180401-p4z7bh.html>.

     ↑

337. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

338. The Commission notes that the 2018–19 Victorian Budget has allocated an additional three magistrates to establish a new Bail and Remand Court in the Magistrates’ Court and 15 magistrates in the Criminal Division of the Magistrates’ Court to respond to demand: Department of Treasury and Finance (Vic), Victorian Budget 18/19: Getting Things Done, Service Delivery Budget Paper No. 3 (2017) 112. This increased budget for additional magistrates is discussed in Chapter 8.

     ↑

339. Submissions 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 43 (knowmore), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria); Consultations 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 9 (Domestic Violence Victoria Members).

     ↑

340. Community Safety Trustee (Vic), Community Safety Trustee: First Progress Report—June 2017 (2017) 14.

     ↑

341. Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Rebuilding Strength—VOCAT Project: Practitioner Survey Preliminary Results (2017) (unpublished) 5–7.

     ↑

342. Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 33.

     ↑

343. Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Capacity Building Project, Discussion Paper (Whittlesea Community Connections, 2011) 71.

     ↑

344. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Koori VOCAT List Pilot, Review and Recommendations (2010) 32.

     ↑

345. Department of Justice (Vic), Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards, Discussion Paper (2009) 42.

     ↑

346. Department of Attorney General and Justice (NSW), Review of the Victims Compensation Fund (PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia, 2012) 8.

     ↑

347. Bree Cook, Fiona David and Anna Grant, Victims’ Needs, Victims’ Rights: Policies and Programs for Victims of Crime in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1999) 69.

     ↑

348. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

349. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 18 (cohealth), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria); Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies).

     ↑

350. Submissions 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

351. Submissions 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 23 (Johnstone & Reimer Lawyers), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

352. Submissions 5 (Anglicare Victoria Victims Assistance Program), 14 (Inner Melbourne Community Legal), 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 17 (Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare), 19 (Schembri & Co Lawyers), 27 (Name withheld), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 41 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 43 (knowmore), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce), 15 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Victim Support Agencies), 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

353. Submissions 15 (Merri Health Victims Assistance Program), 43 (knowmore).

     ↑

354. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

     ↑

355. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑

356. Federation of Community Legal Centres, Submission to Victorian Department of Justice, Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-Funded Awards, February 2010, 7.

     ↑

357. Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Capacity Building Project, Discussion Paper (Whittlesea Community Connections, 2011) 27, which found that the lack of written reasons for decisions made it difficult to gather evidence about the operation of VOCAT and thus even more difficult to educate the legal profession about it.

     ↑

358. Department of Justice (Vic), Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards, Discussion Paper (2009) 42.

     ↑

359. Submissions 33 (Eastern Community Legal Centre), 38 (Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers), 43 (knowmore), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria), 51 (Law Institute of Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 3 (Legal Professionals—Community Legal Centres), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

     ↑

360. Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

361. Victims Support Agency, Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), Counselling for Victims of Crime: An Examination of the Counselling Experiences of 62 Applicants to the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (June 2011) 33–5.

     ↑

362. Department of Justice (Vic), Reviewing Victims of Crime Compensation: Sentencing Orders and State-funded Awards, Discussion Paper (2009) 18.

     ↑

363. Ibid 42.

     ↑

364. Consultations 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 23 (Community Safety Trustee, Victoria).

     ↑

365. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

     ↑