Representing survivors of domestic and sexual violence

Kayla is a survivor of sexual violence that occurred when she was a child.  In 2023, her applications for victims support were dismissed.  The decision-makers said that although there was sufficient documentary evidence to support each application,  they were concerned that Kayla had only recently recalled certain details of the violence.  They also said that Kayla’s report to police lacked credibility because the decision-makers thought that it was “motivated by a desire to access victims support”.

Think about that for a moment. Kayla could not bring a compensation scheme application without a police report, and was then criticised because she had gone to the police to make a report in order to apply for the compensation to which she was entitled!   

We helped Kayla appeal these damaging decisions.  Relying on evidence from Kayla’s counsellor, we submitted that Kayla had suppressed traumatic memories from a young age, and her recollection of the violence she experienced was non-linear and non-chronological.  We referred to the report funded by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse about the effects of child sexual abuse on memory, and explained that Kayla’s was a common psychological response to sexual violence.  We also submitted that any motivation of Kayla to access victims support in making her reports to the police could not be cast as damaging to the credibility of her claims, and that it was highly inappropriate for the initial decision-makers to have done so.  Kayla’s finally received a victims support payment for the sexual violence she had experienced.  For Kayla, to be approved support was a significant acknowledgement of the pattern of abuse that defined her childhood and continues to impact her life.

Brooke is the mother of two young boys, who applied for criminal injuries compensation for domestic violence.  At the time of her application, the offender was in custody for unrelated offences.  The decision-maker refused Brooke’s application, after accessing prison records and noting that Brooke had been in contact with the offender during his incarceration. 

Brooke was not in an ongoing relationship with her assailant. However she was frightened that if she did not keep up some contact with him, he would eventually retaliate against her and her children.  We relied on research from the Australian Institute of Criminology, the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book and relevant case law, to explain how Brooke’s contact with the offender was motivated by fear, and a real belief that she must maintain contact with him by way of self-preservation.  Our submissions were accepted, and Brooke was awarded almost $150,000 (including allowances for her future medical treatment) in criminal injuries compensation.