Abstract:
The Supreme Court majority in Davies v Police relied upon an unrealistic conception of the accident compensation system in denying the availability of criminal reparations to supplement the compensation provided through it. The primary aim of this paper is the exposition of an alternative theoretical structure of the accident compensation scheme, allowing engagement with and development of accident compensation law in a manner far more in accordance with reality than the conceptualisation employed by the Davies majority. In accordance with the historical development of the scheme, ‘no-fault can be seen as simply a default mechanism of providing compensation in accordance with the principles of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Competing imperatives promote the creation of exceptions to no-fault compensation, clear examples of which can be identified. This conception allows reconsideration of the appropriateness of allowing supplementary criminal reparations, taking into account the imperative underlying imperative of any prospective exception and its relationship with currently existing exceptions.
