Scott Austic’s compensation is no longer prospective: in May 2023, the Western Australian government announced a total ex gratia payment of $1.6 million after his conviction for Stacey Thorne’s murder was set aside and he was acquitted at retrial. That total included a $250,000 interim payment authorised in 2021. The government also supported certain reasonable legal costs, but the sources available do not establish whether those costs were later paid.
Did Scott Austic receive compensation?
The Western Australian government announced the $1.6 million total on 17–18 May 2023. It was an ex gratia payment—made by the government in the circumstances of the case—not a court award following a civil damages judgment. Austic had requested $8.5 million. The announced total included the $250,000 interim payment authorised in 2021 while a Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) investigation was pending. Western Australian Parliament’s 18 May 2023 statement and ABC News’ 17 May 2023 report describe the decision.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Introduction to Criminal Justice (MindTap Course List) | $91.04 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Inside the Criminal Mind (Newly Revised Edition) | $11.44 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Criminal Law Handbook, The: Know Your Rights, Survive the System | $39.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Criminology For Dummies | $17.59 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Criminal Justice: An Overview of the System | $14.83 | Buy on Amazon |
The government also supported payment of reasonable legal costs for specified proceedings: two petitions to government, the 2020 appeal, and the retrial. Those costs were additional to the announced $1.6 million total; the available reports do not state the eventual amount paid or confirm that every supported cost was paid.
How did Austic’s conviction lead to an acquittal?
The conviction and referral
Stacey Thorne was killed at her home in Boddington, Western Australia, on 9 December 2007. Austic was convicted of her wilful murder on 6 April 2009 and served approximately 12.5 years in prison. After an initial unsuccessful appeal and a petition to the Attorney General, the conviction was referred to the Court of Appeal in April 2018. The referral allowed the court to examine concerns about evidence; it was not itself a finding that Austic was innocent or that officials had committed misconduct.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
The appeal and retrial
In 2020, the Court of Appeal set aside Austic’s conviction and ordered a retrial. ABC’s account of the compensation decision reported that the court considered credible, cogent and plausible evidence that a bloodstained cigarette packet may have been planted, and found that the knife identified as the murder weapon had been planted and was too short to cause the fatal wounds. These evidence concerns led to a retrial, not a determination of who killed Thorne.
A jury acquitted Austic in November 2020. An acquittal means the prosecution did not establish guilt to the criminal standard at retrial; it does not identify another perpetrator. Thorne’s murder remains unsolved.
Rank #2
What did the CCC conclude about possible misconduct?
The CCC provided a report to the Attorney General on 27 March 2023. It did not find that police or prosecutors committed serious misconduct. As ABC reported, the commission said the limits of the original evidence and the passage of time meant it could not reliably determine when the can, knife or cigarette packet came to be at the locations where they were found. An independent report by barrister Anthony Power found no new evidence for the commission to consider.
The appeal’s findings about the physical evidence and the CCC’s inability to establish how that evidence came to be at the scene address different questions. The appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial; the CCC could not reliably determine whether serious misconduct had occurred. Neither conclusion resolves who murdered Thorne.
Recommended Free Tools
What conditions applied to the payment?
The government’s announcement said Austic would have to repay the money if he were found responsible for or complicit in Thorne’s death in a civil or criminal trial. The cited reports do not establish that this condition has been triggered. They also do not provide a later record confirming whether the supported legal costs were paid.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How does the amount compare with Andrew Mallard’s?
ABC reported that Austic’s lawyer, Clint Hampson, called the offer disappointing and compared it with the $3.25 million awarded to Andrew Mallard, who spent less time in custody. That was the lawyer’s comparison, not an official like-for-like assessment. The reported figures do not, by themselves, account for differences in payment structure, treatment of legal costs, decision-maker, timing or other case circumstances.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
