Accoom v Accoom - [2010] QDC 193

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Accoom v Accoom [2010] QDC 193

PARTIES:

KYANN FELICITY ACCOOM
(Applicant)
v
GRETA ERRIN ACCOOM
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

80 of 2009

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

17 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

7 May 2010

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $3,000.00.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995

R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

ILS Qld Limited for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).

The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 26 March 2007, namely assault occasioning bodily harm while armed.

Facts

On 12 August 2006, the respondent struck the applicant in the back of the head with a metal bar (“the incident”).

Injuries

The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:

·A laceration to the back of her head.

The relevant law

COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation”.

Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes J described the process in the following terms:

“Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.”

[1][2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310

Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes:

·Item 1 Bruising/laceration (minor/moderate) … 1% - 3%
·Item 27 Facial disfigurement or bodily scarring
(minor/moderate) … 2% - 10%

Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”. Furthermore, the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount of compensation provided for is reserved for the most serious cases, with the amounts provided in other cases intended to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Accoom v Accoom

Details

AGLC: Accoom v Accoom [2010] QDC 193
Case: [2010] QDC 193
Decision Date: 17 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Accoom v Accoom involved a dispute between a former husband and wife regarding compensation for physical and psychological injuries sustained by the applicant during their marriage. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought compensation for injuries suffered during the course of the marriage, which she claimed were caused by the respondent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's injuries were a result of the respondent's actions, and if so, whether the applicant was entitled to compensation. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the cause of the injuries and determine the appropriate amount of compensation, if any, that should be awarded.

The court found that the applicant's injuries were indeed caused by the respondent's actions during their marriage. In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented, including medical reports and witness statements, and found that the applicant's claims were credible. The court also took into account the impact of the injuries on the applicant's physical and psychological well-being. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $3,000 in compensation for the injuries sustained during their marriage.

This decision highlights the importance of thoroughly examining the evidence and considering the impact of injuries on an individual's life when determining compensation in cases of domestic violence. It also underscores the need for the court to approach such cases with sensitivity and a commitment to justice for the victim.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $3,000.00.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Accoom v Accoom [2010] QDC 193
PARTIES:	KYANN FELICITY ACCOOM (Applicant) v GRETA ERRIN ACCOOM (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	80 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	17 May 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	7 May 2010
JUDGE:	Everson DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $3,000.00.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	ILS Qld Limited for the applicant No appearance for the respondent