Girl tormented and abused by child bullies wins landmark compensation

• Supreme Court overturns crime tribunal decision
• Girl's ordeal began when she was at primary school
• Bullies continue to torment her on Facebook

A GIRL tormented and abused by child bullies has won a landmark bid for compensation.

The Supreme Court has overturned a decision by the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, which refused to compensate the girl because her attackers were under 10 - too young to face criminal charges.

In making the ruling, the Supreme Court said the bullies meant to hurt their victim even if they weren't old enough to form "criminal intent".

The ordeal began when the girl was eight in grade 2 at a country Victorian state primary school.

At least three girls joined in daily abuse over the next few years, until the girl's parents moved her to a private school that they struggled to afford.

The bullies threatened to kill her, menaced her with scissors and broken bottles, punched and kicked her and pushed her off monkey bars, causing a back injury.

The victim won't pocket more than a few thousand dollars because VOCAT payments are capped.And even today the girl, now 15, is harassed and ridiculed by the same girls, who have turned to Facebook.

But her mother told the Herald Sun the decision was "like we had won a million dollars".

"Just to know that we changed the law ... it's very rewarding," she said.

The mother said she felt let down by the school, which failed to protect her daughter despite endless complaints.

The girl suffered nightmares and anxiety and didn't want to go to school.

Living in a small community, the girl must face her attackers often and suffers panic attacks and post-traumatic stress.

Their lawyer Alastair Lyall said the victory could pave the way for many more payouts.

After their claim for victim compensation was rejected by VOCAT, they appealed to VCAT, which found threats to slit the child's throat were "hollow" and assaults unlikely to be criminally motivated.

But Supreme Court Justice Anthony Cavanough disagreed, saying "they obviously intended to do what they did and they obviously intended to hurt (her)".

The case has been sent back to VCAT to decide the amount of the payment.