AJM v TRH - [2011] QDC 218

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

AJM v TRH [2011] QDC 218

PARTIES:

AJM
(Applicant)

v

TRH
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D104/2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

30 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

9 September 2011

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $25,500.00 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, for injuries sustained as a result of the offences committed on her by the respondent and in respect of which he was convicted and sentenced on 27 April 2006

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – Criminal compensation – indecent dealing – unlawful carnal knowledge – mental or nervous shock – adverse impacts

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, ss 19(1)(a), 22(3) and (4), 24 (8), 25(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7).

Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 2009, s 167.

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995, ss 1A, 2.

Public Trustee Act 1978, s 91.

CASES:

JI v AV [2002], 2 Qd R 367.

Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148.

COUNSEL:

D. J. Hanslow-Hastie, solicitor, for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

DME Law Pty Ltd for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

The Application

On 27 April 2009 this application for criminal compensation was filed. That occurred consequently upon the respondent pleading guilty, in the District Court at Maroochydore before Judge Dodds, on 18 April 2006, to one count of indecently dealing with the applicant when she was under the age of 16 and also two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of her.

For these offences and on 27 April 2006, the respondent was sentenced respectively to terms of four and five years imprisonment, in the context of otherwise being sentenced to a total period of imprisonment of 13 years, for these and other sexual offences committed by him upon other young females, including his own daughter. Some of those other convictions were by jury verdict.

The offences committed upon the applicant were described by Judge Dodds for the purpose of sentencing, as follows:

“[A] in 2001 was living away from her mother with friends in Beerwah. She met [K] one day, and, during a conversation with her asked her whether she knew where she could get work. [K] said her father might have work. She met the prisoner, he told her to turn up the next day. She did. She worked all day and was paid $10 an hour; she was given her money at the end of the day. Over the next three to four days she also worked, but the hours were less and she was paid less and less. On the last day she only received $20. The prisoner told her he had no more work. She remained friendly with [K]. The girls were going to move into together but [K] then decided she was going to move with the prisoner into a…

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 AJM v TRH

Details

AGLC: AJM v TRH [2011] QDC 218
Case: [2011] QDC 218
Decision Date: 30 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of AJM v TRH came before the court to consider an application for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The applicant, AJM, sought compensation for injuries sustained from offences committed by the respondent, TRH. These offences included indecent dealing and unlawful carnal knowledge. The applicant claimed that she suffered mental or nervous shock and adverse impacts due to the criminal acts committed by TRH. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant was entitled to compensation under the relevant statutory provisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated that she suffered mental or nervous shock as a result of the offences, and whether this shock led to adverse impacts that warranted compensation. The court needed to consider the evidence presented by the applicant regarding the nature and extent of her mental or nervous shock, as well as any corroborative evidence that supported her claims. Additionally, the court had to examine the statutory framework governing criminal compensation to ensure that the applicant's claims were within the scope of the legislation.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the applicant had adequately demonstrated the requisite mental or nervous shock and the associated adverse impacts. The evidence presented by the applicant, including expert psychiatric reports and personal testimony, was deemed credible and sufficient to support the claim for compensation. The court also noted that the statutory provisions under which the applicant sought compensation were broad enough to encompass the types of injuries and impacts she had experienced. Consequently, the court determined that the applicant was entitled to compensation under s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $25,500.00 as compensation for the injuries sustained. The payment was to be made pursuant to the statutory authority provided by the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. This order was made in recognition of the significant impact the criminal offences had on the applicant's mental health and overall well-being.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $25,500.00 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, for injuries sustained as a result of the offences committed on her by the respondent and in respect of which he was convicted and sentenced on 27 April 2006

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:	AJM v TRH [2011] QDC 218
PARTIES:	AJM (Applicant) v TRH (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D104/2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	9 September 2011
JUDGE:	Long SC, DCJ
ORDER:	I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $25,500.00 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, for injuries sustained as a result of the offences committed on her by the respondent and in respect of which he was convicted and sentenced on 27 April 2006
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – Criminal compensation – indecent dealing – unlawful carnal knowledge – mental or nervous shock – adverse impacts
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, ss 19(1)(a), 22(3) and (4), 24 (8), 25(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7). Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 2009, s 167. Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995, ss 1A, 2. Public Trustee Act 1978, s 91.
CASES:	JI v AV [2002], 2 Qd R 367. Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148.
COUNSEL:	D. J. Hanslow-Hastie, solicitor, for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	DME Law Pty Ltd for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent