ATA/174/1997•Witnessing an assault on one’s child does not confer victim status
ATA/174/1997Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberMar 11, 1997Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The appellant witnessed an assault on her daughter by a drug addict and sought compensation under the Victim Assistance Act. The court held that she was not directly targeted by the offense and therefore did not have victim status within the meaning of the Act. As a result, she was not entitled to an indemnity.
Art. 2 LAVI; victim status and entitlement to indemnity require direct injury by the offence. A person who merely witnesses the assault of a third party, even a close family member, is not directly affected in the sense of the Act and cannot claim statutory indemnity on that basis.
Descripteurs
AIDE AUX VICTIMES; LESION CORPORELLE; VICTIME; INDEMNITE(EN GENERAL); INDM
Normes
LAVI.2; RIILAVI.2
Résumé
N'est pas directement visée par l'infraction au sens de la LAVI la recourante qui a assisté à l'agression de sa fille par une toxicomane. N'a pas qualité pour prétendre au versement d'une indemnité au sens de la LAVI, la recourante qui a assisté à l'agression de sa fille par une toxicomane.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the appellant qualifies as a victim under the Victim Assistance Act because she witnessed the assault on her daughter.
She does not qualify as a directly injured victim within the meaning of the Act.
The assault was directed at the daughter, not at the appellant; merely witnessing the attack is insufficient to establish direct victim status.
Whether the appellant is entitled to an indemnity under the Victim Assistance Act.
She has no right to an indemnity under the Act.
Because she is not directly covered as a victim, she cannot claim the statutory indemnity.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.