CASTLE -v- THOMAS [2026] WADC 58

[2026] WADC 58 [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 1 JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : CASTLE -v- THOMAS [2026] WADC 58 CORAM : ZEMPILAS DCJ HEARD : 12 MAY 2026 DELIVERED : 26 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : APP 56 of 2025 MATTER : IN THE MATTER of Part 7 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 BETWEEN : ELLOUISE JUNE VICTORIA CASTLE Appellant AND KENNETH JAMES THOMAS Respondent ON APPEAL FROM: Jurisdiction : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram : R A BAYLY File Number : CIC 1226/2021 -- 1 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 2 Catchwords: Criminal injuries compensation - Appeal - Adequacy of award - Fresh evidence - Nature of injury - Bodily harm and mental and nervous shock - Cost of future treatment Legislation: Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) Result: Appeal allowed Representation: Counsel: Appellant : In person Respondent : Mr R Guthrie Amicus Curiae : Mr P Beer appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice Solicitors: Appellant : Not applicable Respondent : Scales Community Legal Centre Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor for Western Australia Case(s) referred to in decision(s): BAS v The Estate of NAS (Dec) [2000] WASCA 270 Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27; (1992) 176 CLR 408 Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70 Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 Cahill v Smith [2015] WADC 148 De Florenca v Hayden [2007] WADC 54 Dimitrovska v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 162; (2015) 253 A Crim R 407 -- 2 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 3 EB v Ramljak [2021] WADC 134 Fagan v The Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666 Fairhead v Quartermaine [2010] WADC 1; (2010) 69 SR (WA) 73 Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145 Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19 Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78 Johnston v Watts [2024] WADC 62 LS v SL [2023] WADC 8 Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3 M v J (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992) March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506 Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138 Passaris v Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (Unreported, WADC, Library No D990151, 1 June 1999) R v Fraser [1975] 2 NSWLR 521 Re AK [2016] WADC 156 Re Collard [2018] WADC 1 Re CY [2014] WADC 41 Re HCM [2018] WADC 20 Re Jackamarra [2014] WADC 9 Re Robinson [2017] WADC 18 Re Warrek [2019] WADC 50 Re; Hojetzki [2009] WADC 77 S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452 Savic v Duric [2021] WADC 53 TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187 Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13 -- 3 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 4 ZEMPILAS DCJ: Introduction 1 The appellant asks the court to vary an award for criminal injuries compensation that was made in her favour. 2 The appellant was the victim of an offence committed by the respondent in which she suffered an injury, and the appellant says that the compensation awarded does not adequately reflect the impact of the injury. Background and issues on appeal 3 The respondent pleaded guilty to an aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm which occurred on 11 June 2021 (the Offence). The respondent was sentenced for the Offence at Rockingham Magistrates Court on 17 September 2021. 4 A summary of the facts of the Offence, as read by the prosecution at sentencing,1 is as follows: 1. At about 11 pm on 11 June 2021, the appellant was at her home address in Wellard. She was sitting out the front on one of the steps smoking a cigarette with a friend. 2. The respondent, her neighbour at the time, left his house next door and approached them on the footpath. The appellant said, 'Hey, how are you?' and immediately saw the respondent was holding a yellow-handled screwdriver in his left hand. The screwdriver was about 20 cm long. 3. The respondent called the appellant a 'black c---' and began to cross the road. The appellant was shocked and answered, 'Excuse me?' to which the respondent turned and walked close to her face. He yelled, 'Shut the fuck up. Shut your holes'. 4. The respondent punched the appellant once to the mouth with a clenched fist while holding the screwdriver in the same hand. This caused instant paint to the appellant, who ran inside the house to alert her partner. 1 Magistrates Court transcript (MC ts), pages 4 - 5 (17 September 2021). -- 4 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 5 5. As a result of the punch, the appellant's front tooth was knocked out and another tooth pushed back into her mouth. The appellant's mouth was bleeding, and she was in immense pain. 6. The assault was unprovoked. 7. On 14 June 2021, the respondent was arrested and conveyed to Rockingham Police Station where he participated in a video interview and made full admissions to the Offence. He said, 'I just snapped because I've been harassed before. I don't know why I did it'. 5 On 25 June 2021, the appellant claimed compensation for injury and loss resulting from the Offence.2 6 A that time, the appellant identified the estimated costs of future treatment expenses as being a total of $7,000.3 7 On 10 October 2025, an Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (Assessor) awarded the appellant $39,976.45 (Award) on the appellant's application for criminal injuries compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA) (Act) lodged 25 June 2021 (Application). 8 The claim was assessed as follows:4 Injuries $30,000.00 Treatment Expenses $4,640.66 Future treatment expenses to a maximum of $7,500.00 SUB TOTAL $42,140.66 Less other compensation received $2,164.21 TOTAL AMOUNT OF AWARD $39,976.45 Less Future treatment expenses not yet incurred $7,500.00 BALANCE PAYABLE $32,476.45 2 Assessor's Papers, pages 2 - 6. 3 Assessor's Papers, page 5. 4 Assessor's Papers, pages 62 - 63. -- 5 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 6 9 Any request by the appellant for payment for future treatment expenses must be made by 10 October 2035.5 10 The Assessor ordered that, pursuant to s 45(1)(a) of the Act, proceedings under pt 6 of the Act seeking to recover compensation from the respondent, be barred. 11 The Assessor did not provide reasons for making the Award. 12 By notice of appeal filed on 5 November 2025, the appellant commenced an appeal against the Award. The appellant provided grounds of appeal as follows: 1. The compensation awarded does not adequately reflect the pain and suffering experienced, particularly the trauma associated with dental treatment following the assault. 2. The psychological impact of the offence was not sufficiently considered in the original assessment. 3. New supporting evidence is being submitted, a personal statement which were not included in the original application. 13 The appeal was not commenced within time and was four days out of time. 14 The appellant filed an affidavit in support of an application for leave to commence the appeal out of time on 5 November 2025.6 15 The respondent was served with the notice of appeal on 7 December 2025.7 The respondent has indicated an intention to participate in the appeal only to the extent that he seeks the order made by the Assessor barring proceedings under pt 6 of the Act in respect of the award be upheld.8 16 The appellant does not seek to disturb this aspect of the Assessor's orders. 5 Assessor's Papers, page 62. 6 Affidavit of Ellouise June Victoria Castle sworn 29 October 2025 (Affidavit 29 October 2025). 7 Service Certificate filed 9 December 2025. 8 Notice of Respondent's Intention filed 19 December 2025. -- 6 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 7 17 On 17 March 2026, the appellant was ordered to file a book of documents on which she intended to rely at this appeal,9 no later than 21 days prior to the hearing. 18 No additional documents were filed by the appellant, until she filed the following documents relevant to the issues on appeal on 4 May 2026 (fresh evidence): 1. Affidavit Ellouise Castle sworn 3 May 2026 (Affidavit 3 May 2026); 2. Document titled 'Reimbursements and Future Costs' (with Attachments A to F); 3. Document titled 'Treatment and Impact Timeline'; and 4. Letter from Roslyn Snyder dated 5 May 2026. 19 In the further Affidavit in support of her appeal the appellant asserts:10 I have experienced significant ongoing trauma from the attack on me from my neighbour in three areas: • (1) I was a young girl attacked unprovoked by a grown man. • (2) My attacker targeted me because I am of Aboriginal decent. - I was called a racial slur before being attacked. - My attacker has provided evidence that he holds racist views in his supporting documentation to the courts (Refer to 'SUPPORTING EVIDENCE RESPONDANT'S [sic] MATERIAL'). • (3) I have experienced horrific and ongoing dental treatment for close to 5 years as a result of the attack. Dental treatment that will be ongoing for the rest of my life (due to future dental implant treatment and maintenance). 20 In relation to (1) to (3) above, the appellant says:11 Since providing my earlier statement, my condition has significantly worsened. I have now (nearly 5 years later) lost my front tooth permanently and continue to experience ongoing physical and psychological impacts as a direct result of the assault. 9 Orders of Registrar Kubacz made 17 March 2026. 10 Affidavit Ellouise Castle sworn 3 May 2026 (Affidavit 3 May 2026), par 2. 11 Affidavit 3 May 2026, pars 3 - 4. -- 7 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 8 21 The reference to 'earlier statement' means a previous personal statement by the appellant dated 29 October 2025.12 22 The appellant seeks to introduce the fresh evidence at the hearing of the appeal. 23 In addition, after the hearing of the appeal, the appellant seeks to rely on a further Affidavit affirmed 30 May 202613 in respect of future treatment costs including: 1. Documents in respect of current HBF cover for dental work; and 2. Letter from Roslyn Snyder dated 22 May 2026 as to estimated costs of future treatment. 24 The appellant also seeks to amend her grounds of appeal to include: 4. The compensation awarded does not reflect financial losses incurred through the appellant breaking the lease on the property in Wellard in or around August 2021. 25 There are four main issues in this appeal. 1. Should the appellant be granted leave to amend her grounds of appeal? 2. Should the appellant be granted leave to commence her appeal out of time? 3. Should this court receive the fresh evidence? 4. Is the appellant entitled to compensation and, if so, what is the appropriate assessment of any compensation award? General principles applicable Nature of the appeal 26 An appeal under the Act must be commenced within 21 days of a decision of an assessor.14 The court has a discretion to allow an appeal to be commenced after the 21-day period, if it is just to do so.15 12 Filed 5 November 2025 along with Affidavit 29 October 2025. 13 Affidavit of Ellouise Castle affirmed 30 May 2026 (Affidavit 30 May 2026). 14 Section 55(3) of the Act. -- 8 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 9 27 In deciding whether to exercise discretion to extend time, the court can take into account the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, the extent of any prejudice to the respondent, along with other matters.16 28 An appeal under the Act is a hearing de novo.17 Consequently, there is no requirement for the appellant to demonstrate error on the part of the Assessor. 29 The court may confirm, vary or reverse the Assessor's decision either in whole or in part.18 It is open to the court to increase or decrease the compensation awarded by the Assessor (subject to the jurisdictional limit).19 30 The appeal is to be determined by the court 'without being fettered by the Assessor's decision'.20 31 For the purposes of the appeal, the court has been provided with the Assessor's Papers including the statements of the appellant and witnesses and other police documents,21 medical documents22 and loss documents.23 32 In addition to the Assessor's Papers, the court has been provided with the transcript of proceedings in relation to the Offence, namely the sentencing proceedings before Magistrate Andretich, heard on 17 September 2021 in the Rockingham Magistrates Court.24 Fresh evidence 33 Section 56(1) of the Act provides that the court may decide the appeal solely on the evidence and information that was in the possession of the Assessor or may receive further evidence and information.25 The court will permit fresh evidence to be admitted 'unless there is some reason why it would be unjust to do so'.26 15 Section 55(4) of the Act. 16 Underwood v Underwood [2018] WADC 13 [25] - [35] (Underwood). 17 Underwood [19]; Re Collard [2018] WADC 1 [30]; Gullelo v Halloran [2008] WADC 145 [5]. 18 Section 56(2)(b) of the Act. 19 Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19 [15]. 20 Section 56(1) of the Act. 21 Assessor's Papers, pages 7 - 40. 22 Assessor's Papers, pages 67 - 70. 23 Assessor's Papers, pages 83 - 90. 24 MC ts (17 September 2021). 25 District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 50(2). See Underwood [36]; Cahill v Smith [2015] WADC 148 [8]. 26 Re HCM [2018] WADC 20 [13]; Underwood [37]; Re Robinson [2017] WADC 18 [8]; Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe [2010] WADC 78 [9]. -- 9 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 10 Entitlement to compensation 34 The respondent's claim for compensation is based on 'the commission of a proved offence'.27 The term 'proved offence' is defined to mean 'a crime, misdemeanour or simple offence of which a person has been convicted'.28 The appellant's conviction for the Offence is a proved offence for the purposes of the Act. 35 For a claim based on the commission of a proved offence, the scheme of the Act is that an assessor starts from the basis of the proved offence, and then proceeds to determine causation and assess compensation.29 Compensation for a proved offence can only be awarded if the assessor is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant has suffered the injury and loss claimed, and that the injury and loss were a consequence of the commission of the offence.30 36 In the case of a plea of guilty, the facts admitted for sentence and any facts found by the sentencing judge establish the facts of the conviction.31 37 Therefore, this appeal is to be determined on the basis of the relevant statements of material facts read onto the record by the prosecution at sentence, and it would be wrong in principle to reach any finding of fact which contradicts those facts as found.32 Assessment of compensation 38 The maximum amount of compensation which may be awarded is $75,000.33 The maximum compensation payable under the Act is merely a jurisdictional limit and is not reserved for the worst cases.34 39 The correct approach to adopt in fixing the appropriate amount of compensation is to apply the ordinary tortious principles for assessment of damages, subject to the limitations imposed by the definitions of 27 Section 12(1) of the Act. 28 Section 3 of the Act. 29 Underwood [46] (Gething DCJ). 30 See s 3 of the Act (definition of 'satisfied') and s 12(3); See also BAS v The Estate of NAS (Dec) [2000] WASCA 270 [11]. 31 Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70 [67] (Martin CJ), applied in LS v SL [2023] WADC 8 [30] (Sweeney DCJ). 32 Section 129(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA); LS v SL [41] - [42] (Sweeney DCJ). 33 Section 31(1) of the Act. 34 S v Neumann (1995) 14 WAR 452, 463 (Murray J); Underwood [112] (Gething DCJ); Re CY [2014] WADC 41 [30] (Sleight DCJ); TAW v NJS [2011] WADC 187 [21] (Bowden DCJ); De Florenca v Hayden [2007] WADC 54 [16] (Yeats DCJ). -- 10 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 11 'injury' and 'loss' in the Act and the jurisdictional limit imposed by the Act.35 40 In assessing the amount of compensation which should be awarded, the court must have regard solely to the injury suffered by an applicant in consequence of the commission of the offence, and not to the seriousness of the offence. The amount is not to be fixed as punishment of the offender or as an expression of sympathy for the victim.36 41 In assessing the appropriate amount of compensation, a broad and subjective assessment must be undertaken with consideration of what the community would regard as reasonable compensation.37 42 There is limited utility in comparing other awards of compensation or damages for personal injuries due to the inability of appeal courts and tribunals to know that they are comparing like with like.38 43 Counsel for amicus referred to several cases involving assaults causing comparable or objectively more serious injury in which the total awards ranged from $7,50039 to $21,600.40 Injury and loss 44 Compensation is relevantly payable where a person has suffered 'injury' in consequence of the commission of an offence.41 Bodily harm and mental and nervous shock are included in the definition of 'injury'.42 45 To make an appropriate award of compensation, sufficient evidence ought to be before the court.43 Supporting medical evidence from an appropriately qualified medical practitioner is generally required to prove that an injury exists and was caused by the offence.44 35 M v J (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 920598, 19 November 1992) 11 - 12 (Scott J); Underwood [112] - [113] (Gething DCJ); Re CY [30] (Sleight DCJ); Re Jackamarra [2014] WADC 9 [15] (Schoombee DCJ); LS v SL [132] (Sweeney DCJ). 36 Underwood [115] (Gething DCJ); Re CY [29] (Sleight DCJ); Re Jackamarra [15] (Schoombee DCJ). 37 Re Warrek [2019] WADC 50 [37] (Troy DCJ); R v Fraser [1975] 2 NSWLR 521, 523 (Wootten J). 38 Fairhead v Quartermaine [2010] WADC 1; (2010) 69 SR (WA) 73 [14] (Deane DCJ). 39 Savic v Duric [2021] WADC 53. 40 Johnston v Watts [2024] WADC 62. 41 Section 12(1) of the Act. 42 Section 3 of the Act. 43 Passaris v Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation (Unreported, WADC, Library No D990151, 1 June 1999) 5 - 6 (Nisbet DCJ). 44 See Re; Hojetzki [2009] WADC 77 [48] (Sleight DCJ). -- 11 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 12 46 As a general proposition, a victim cannot be expected to provide an objective and impartial account of an offence and its consequences in a victim impact statement provided to the court.45 47 Compensation is also payable where a person has suffered 'loss' which is defined as follows:46 In the case of a victim who is injured, loss means - (a) expenses actually and reasonably incurred by or on behalf of the victim - (i) that arise directly from; or (ii) that arise in obtaining any report from a health professional or a counsellor in relation to, the injury suffered by the victim; or (b) expenses that are likely to be reasonably incurred by or on behalf of the victim for treatment that the victim is likely to need as a direct consequence of the injury suffered by the victim; or (c) loss of earnings suffered by the victim as a direct consequence of the injury suffered by the victim; or (d) any loss arising from any damage caused as a direct consequence of the commission of the offence to any personal item that was being worn by the victim when he or she suffered the injury. Causation 48 An applicant must establish a causal relationship between the commission of an offence and the injury or loss for which the compensation is sought.47 49 The requirement that a causal link be proved raises two main issues for the court to consider: (a) first, the extent, if any, to which the appellant's claimed injury and loss was caused or contributed to by pre-existing physical and psychological injuries; and (b) second, the extent, if any, to which the appellant has failed to mitigate his injury or loss. 45 Dimitrovska v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 162; (2015) 253 A Crim R 407 [74] (Martin CJ, McLure P & Hall J agreeing). 46 Section 6(2) of the Act. 47 S v Neumann (463) (Murray J); Re AK [2016] WADC 156 [71] (Schoombee DCJ); Martin v Martin [2015] WADC 138 [82] (Derrick DCJ). -- 12 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 13 50 The determination of whether the requisite causal connection exists is a question of fact to be resolved as a matter of common sense.48 51 A sufficient causal connection will be established if, as a matter of ordinary common sense and experience, the offence or offences are regarded as having 'materially contributed' to the injuries or loss.49 Conclusions on applications relating to appeal 52 I am satisfied it is just to extend time within which to appeal. 53 I am satisfied it is appropriate to amend the grounds of appeal as sought, given the appellant is self-represented. 54 I am satisfied there is no reason why it would be unjust to admit the fresh evidence. Accordingly, I consider the appeal with the benefit of the fresh evidence, which includes the Affidavit 29 October 2025, Affidavit 3 May 2026 and Affidavit 30 May 2026. Conclusions on entitlement and assessment 55 The events that caused the injury suffered by the appellant were described in the facts read at sentencing.50 I am satisfied the Offence caused the injury. 56 As to the nature of the injury, I find the appellant suffered bodily harm, in the form of dental injuries, as well as mental and nervous shock. 57 In respect of my finding as to bodily harm, I rely on the documents from the appellant's dental treatment provider Smile Planners which were also before the Assessor: (a) Letter from Dr Nikita Nepali dated 28 June 2021;51 (b) Treatment History from 10 June 2021 to 2 September 2023;52 48 EB v Ramljak [2021] WADC 134 [36] (Whitby DCJ), citing Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27; (1992) 176 CLR 408, 412 - 413; Fagan v The Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; (1982) 150 CLR 666, 673 and Underwood. 49 EB v Ramljak [36] (Whitby DCJ), citing Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, 620; March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, 515; Lyle v Soc [2009] WASCA 3 [40], and Underwood [87]. See also S v Neumann (463) - (464) (Murray J); Martin v Martin [83] (Derrick DCJ). 50 MC ts 3 - ts 4 (19 September 2021). 51 Assessor's Papers, page 67. 52 Assessor's Papers, pages 70 - 75. -- 13 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 14 (c) Patient Details 10 June 2021;53 (d) Statement of Account as at 21 February 2024;54 58 I also rely on photographs and X-rays of the appellant's dental injuries.55 59 I further rely on the fresh evidence that the appellant has subsequently filed in respect of bodily harm as follows: (a) Dental Bill 12 June 2021 - 2 September 2023;56 (b) Tooth removal and Essix retainer bill from Infinite Smiles Dental dated 3 February 2026 for which total payable by appellant was $717;57 (c) Denture bill from Infinite Smiles Dental dated 3 March 2026 for which total payable by appellant was $618.50;58 (d) An undated letter from Dr Manjot Singgh, Infinite Smiles Dental recommending dental implant placement;59 (e) Quote for Dental Implant from Infinite Smiles Dental dated 17 January 2026 for $8,041.15;60 and (f) HBF Health Cover Statements and proof of exceeded HBF cover.61 60 The appellant relies on the totality of the evidence in respect of the dental injuries to establish both injury and loss. 61 As a direct consequence of the injury (bodily harm), I am satisfied the appellant has incurred direct loss in the form of past medical expenses and will be exposed to future loss in the form of the dental implant and associated costs which will not be reimbursed, even partially, through health insurance. 53 Assessor's Papers, pages 84 - 87. 54 Assessor's Papers, pages 88 - 89. 55 Assessor's Papers, pages 40 - 45. 56 Document titled 'Reimbursements & Future Costs' filed 4 May 2026, Attachment A. 57 'Reimbursements & Future Costs', Attachment B. 58 'Reimbursements & Future Costs', Attachment C. 59 Affidavit 3 May 2026, Attachment X. 60 'Reimbursements & Future Costs', Attachment E. 61 Affidavit 30 May 2026, Attachments A, B and C. -- 14 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 15 62 In respect of my finding as to mental and nervous shock, I rely on the Affidavit 3 May 2026. 63 I also rely on a letter from the appellant's treating psychologist, Ms Roslyn Snyder, dated 15 July 2021 which was also before the Assessor62 and the further letters from Ms Snyder which are part of the fresh evidence.63 64 I find the appellant: (a) experienced further trauma while receiving dental treatment for her injuries from 2021 - 2022 and thereafter continued to experience severe anxiety and fear in relation to subsequent and anticipated required dental treatment; (b) was extremely fearful and anxious in the months immediately after the Offence because the respondent continued to live next door to her, such that it caused her to break the lease on her property, incurring additional financial costs and increased instability in her personal circumstances as a result, which in turn compounded or increased levels of stress and anxiety; (c) additionally experienced adverse psychological and functional impacts on her pregnancy, and within her employment and personal relationships; (d) experiences ongoing symptoms of psychological distress including hypervigilance, unhealthy coping strategies, insomnia, panic attacks, social withdrawal and anxiety, shame, and a trauma response to dental treatment; and (e) will require 15 further sessions in order to address symptoms of complex post-traumatic stress disorder, costing $280 per session. 65 As a direct consequence of the injury (mental and nervous shock), I am satisfied the appellant has incurred direct loss in the form of the costs of psychological treatment and will be exposed to future loss in the form of ongoing professional treatment for her mental health. 62 Assessor's Papers, pages 68 - 69 (Note the letter describes treatment continuing until March 2022). 63 Letter Robyn Snyder dated 5 May 2026 and Affidavit 30 May 2026, Attachment D. -- 15 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 16 66 The appellant is prima facie entitled to compensation by virtue of the injury (bodily harm and mental and nervous shock) and for losses which were a direct consequence of the injury. 67 The appellant was just 18 years old when she suffered the injury. The bodily harm is ongoing in that it has required multiple temporary, and ultimately unsuccessful, measures to be taken ahead of placement of an implant. These measures have been invasive and debilitating in themselves. An implant is now required, which is significantly more serious than treatment involving reinstatement of the appellant's own teeth. 68 Mental and nervous shock accompanies the bodily harm both in terms of the onerous treatment required and the daily reminder of the Offence itself. 69 I accept the bodily harm and mental and nervous shock arising from the injury are enduring and impact all facets of the appellant's day-to-day functioning and quality of life. 70 Applying the relevant principles and taking into account the entirety of the evidence available as to the nature and extent of the injury (bodily harm and mental and nervous shock) and loss (pecuniary loss) as a direct result of the injury, I am satisfied that an appropriate award of compensation is $35,000 and for past medical expenses is $5,976.16 (inclusive of dental costs already incurred by the appellant in 2026) and for future treatment expenses not yet incurred is $14,000. 71 This amount, in my view, adequately takes into account the nature of the injury, including both bodily harm and mental and nervous shock, and the future loss yet to be experienced. Final orders 72 For the reasons set out above: 1. The Assessor's award of $30,000 is increased to $35,000 plus an additional $5,976.16 for past medical expenses. 2. The Assessor's award of $7,500 for future treatment is increased to $14,000. 3. There be no order as to costs. -- 16 of 17 -- [2026] WADC 58 ZEMPILAS DCJ [2026] WADC 58 (AC) Page 17 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia. LC Associate to Judge Zempilas 26 JUNE 2026 -- 17 of 17 --