Executive summary

1 There is a public perception that criminals should not be able to receive any entitlements from ACC for injuries sustained while committing a crime.

2 Under the current law any claimant who has suffered a personal injury by committing an offence for which they are imprisoned may lose their entitlements to rehabilitation, weekly compensation, lump sum compensation and entitlements arising from fatal injuries (for instance weekly compensation in the murder of a spouse).

3 The loss of entitlement sections of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (IPRC Act) are contrary to the provisions underlying ACC being a 24/7, no fault, comprehensive accident compensation scheme. [1]  Any loss of entitlement is determined by the District Court on application from ACC.

4 The number of claims that are the result of claimants committing criminal activities is thought to be low.  At present, ACC does not actively identify these cases, and no information is currently available on the number, costs, or types of these claims.

5 The low number of applications made by ACC since 1992 suggests that an important part of the ‘repugnant to justice’ provisions relates to how ACC identifies relevant claims.  Irrespective of how the courts deal with disentitlement applications that come before them, the problem for ACC is how to identify relevant cases for which applications can be made.  The Department therefore recommends that operational changes to identify relevant cases be considered before any legislative change is contemplated.

6 Courts will continue to apply a high threshold to ‘repugnant to justice’ cases even if an additional criterion were to be added or some removed, as they did before the current provisions were placed in the IPRC Act.  The existing provisions were based on judges’ interpretation of case law and practice.

7 The Ministry of Justice is not in favour of deleting any of the factors under section 122 of the IPRC Act, believing that the Court should be able to consider the totality of the claimant’s case.

8 Having the courts decide ‘repugnant to justice’ cases ensures an independent and transparent decision-making process.  It also means that all the facts are considered carefully before ‘repugnant to justice’ applications are made.  When ACC made the decisions on disentitlements these decisions were often challenged, with subsequent appeals to the Court, and resultant costs.  The Department therefore recommends that District Court remains the forum for decisions on ‘repugnant to justice’ cases.

Recommended action

1 Note the loss of entitlement provisions in the IPRC Act are exceptions to the principles of comprehensive, ‘no fault’ cover that underlie the ACC Scheme

2 Note that ACC has been fully or partly successful in nine of the 11 cases it has brought before the District Courts since 1992

3 Agree that the District Court remains the appropriate forum for deciding where entitlements are ‘repugnant to justice’ for a claimant

AGREE / DO NOT AGREE

4 Note that any changes to the ”repugnant to justice” provisions under the IPRC Act would not remove the need for better identification of relevant cases

5 Agree that operational changes to identify relevant cases where applications for disentitlement could be made should be considered before any legislative changes are contemplated

AGREE / DO NOT AGREE

6 Note that the Department’s preferred option is that ACC investigates the costs and benefits of actively seeking out relevant claimants for whom applications under the existing “repugnant to justice” provisions could be made

7 Note that the Courts will likely continue to apply a high threshold to any “repugnant to justice” case even if an additional criterion were to be added or some removed, and that the Ministry of Justice is not in favour of deleting any of the factors under section 122 of the IPRC Act, believing that the Court should be able to consider the totality of the claimant’s case.

8 Agree that if you wish to further consider an amendment to the “repugnant to justice” provisions, this could be raised as part of the discussion on the content of the IPRC Amendment Bill.

AGREE / DO NOT AGREE

Paul Barker
General Manager Workplace Policy
for Secretary of Labour

Hon Dr Nick Smith
Minister for ACC

---