Albert v O'Keefe - [2004] QDC 232

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Albert v. O’Keefe [2004] QDC 232

PARTIES:

Sean James ALBERT

V

Gaylene Isabel O’KEEFE

FILE NO/S:

D2679/03

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

JUDGE:

BC Hoath DCJ

ORDER:

I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $22,312.50 by way of compensation for the injuries received by the applicant as a result of the offence of unlawful wounding of which the respondent was convicted on 7 March 2001.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – CONTRIBUTION – where applicant and respondent had been drinking together – where respondent stabbed the applicant - where applicant had punched the respondent and kicked her whilst she was on the ground a day or two prior to the offence – whether the applicant had “directly or indirectly” contributed to the injury.

CASES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED

Gottfried v Wills and Attorney General [2004] QDC 002 – applied.

Grahame v Dean [2001] QSC 420 – applied.

Hohn v King [2004] QCA 254 – applied.

LEGISLATION JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 25(7)

COUNSEL:

Mr A Kimmins for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Tony Bailey Solicitor for the applicant

No appearance for he respondent

This is an application by Sean James Albert for criminal compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries received as a result of the offence of unlawful wounding of which the respondent Gaylene Isable O’Keefe was convicted on 7 March 2001 in the District Court at Mt Isa.

That offence was committed on 31 October 2000 when the respondent stabbed the applicant in the right leg. At the time they were living in a de facto relationship and were drinking with other persons in a residence at Mt Isa. The respondent wanted to borrow a vehicle to go and get some more alcohol. When the applicant told her she was too drunk to drive she abused him and then started fighting with another woman who had told her to be quiet. The respondent then armed herself with a knife and stabbed the applicant in the right leg just below the knee. At the time the applicant and the respondent were both drunk.

A day or two prior to the offence being committed the applicant had punched the respondent and kicked her whilst she was on the ground. The respondent’s motivation for stabbing the complainant was to revenge that earlier assault.

After the stabbing the applicant was taken to Mt Isa Base Hospital where examination revealed a 2 centimetre long laceration to his right lower leg. The wound was cleaned and the applicant was discharged from hospital on 4 November 2000.

The applicant returned to hospital on 10 November complaining of pain and swelling at the site of the wound. Further examination revealed a false aneurism which was repaired on 15 November. After that surgery the applicant developed some foot drop. On his discharge from hospital that foot drop…

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 Albert v O'Keefe

Details

AGLC: Albert v O'Keefe [2004] QDC 232
Case: [2004] QDC 232
Decision Date: 13 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Albert v O'Keefe involved an application for compensation brought by the applicant, Albert, against the respondent, O'Keefe. Albert sought compensation for injuries sustained when O'Keefe stabbed him during an altercation. The dispute centred on whether Albert had contributed to the incident in a way that would exclude him from receiving compensation under the applicable legislation. This matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Albert had "directly or indirectly" contributed to the injury for which he was seeking compensation. The court had to consider the events leading up to the stabbing, including an earlier incident where Albert had punched and kicked O'Keefe while she was on the ground. The court was required to interpret the meaning of "directly or indirectly" contributing to the injury and assess whether the earlier altercation could be considered a contributing factor.

The court determined that the term "directly or indirectly" should be interpreted broadly. However, in this instance, the court found that Albert's earlier actions, while certainly contributing to the animosity between the parties, were not the direct cause of the stabbing incident. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between general contributions to a state of affairs and direct causation of the injury in question. Consequently, the court concluded that Albert was not barred from receiving compensation due to his prior actions. The court ordered O'Keefe to pay Albert the sum of $22,312.50 by way of compensation for the injuries he received.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $22,312.50 by way of compensation for the injuries received by the applicant as a result of the offence of unlawful wounding of which the respondent was convicted on 7 March 2001.

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:	Albert v. O’Keefe [2004] QDC 232
PARTIES:	Sean James ALBERT V Gaylene Isabel O’KEEFE
FILE NO/S:	D2679/03
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
JUDGE:	BC Hoath DCJ
ORDER:	I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $22,312.50 by way of compensation for the injuries received by the applicant as a result of the offence of unlawful wounding of which the respondent was convicted on 7 March 2001.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – CONTRIBUTION – where applicant and respondent had been drinking together – where respondent stabbed the applicant - where applicant had punched the respondent and kicked her whilst she was on the ground a day or two prior to the offence – whether the applicant had “directly or indirectly” contributed to the injury. CASES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED Gottfried v Wills and Attorney General [2004] QDC 002 – applied. Grahame v Dean [2001] QSC 420 – applied. Hohn v King [2004] QCA 254 – applied. LEGISLATION JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 25(7)
COUNSEL:	Mr A Kimmins for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Tony Bailey Solicitor for the applicant No appearance for he respondent