Allam v. Vale - [2008] QDC 131

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Allam v Vale [2008] QDC 131

PARTIES:

SAMUEL RAYMOND ALLAM

(Applicant)

V

AARON DOUGLAS JAMES VALE

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD125/07

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

27 June 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2008

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Aaron Douglas James Vale pay the applicant Samuel Raymond Allam the sum of $15,000

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation – dangerous driving causing death – applicant not included on indictment - motor vehicle collision – injuries - concussion – bruising – mental or nervous shock - soft tissue swelling - scalp laceration

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 ss 19(1)(a), 21, 22(4), 24, 25(7), s 26

CASES:

Beardsley v Loogatha [2001] QCA 438,

Georgetown v Sandow [2007] QDC 125

Hicks v The Minister for Justice and Attorney‑General [2005] QSC 44

Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 437

R v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320

RZ (by his litigation guardian) v PAE [2007] QCA 166

Wren v Gaulai [2007] QDC 125, [2008] QCA 148

COUNSEL:

Ms M McLennan for the applicant

The respondent appeared in person

SOLICITORS:

Cleary Hoare for the applicant

The respondent appeared in person

Introduction

The applicant, Samuel Raymond Allam, seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him arising out of a motor vehicle collision which occurred on 13 August 2005 at Wembley Road, Berrinba, resulting in the respondent, Aaron Douglas James Vale, pleading guilty before me in the District Court at Beenleigh on 9 March 2007 to a single count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. The respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment, suspended after serving a period of 18 months imprisonment, with an operational period of five years. The respondent’s driver’s licence was disqualified absolutely.

Facts

The respondent, who was aged 23 years as at 13 August 2005, was served at 1.25 pm on that day with a domestic violence order obtained by his then partner. Shortly after being served by police with the order, the respondent got into his car and drove from his residence at Runcorn to the point of collision on Wembley Road at Berrinba. Prior to leaving his home, the respondent had inhaled butane gas, and he inhaled further butane gas while he was driving. The distance from the respondent’s home to the collision point was some 11 kilometres.

The applicant, who was then 16 years old, was travelling in the rear seat of a car owned and driven by his mother, Roxanne Allam, aged 43. Also in the car at the time was the applicant’s maternal grandmother, Jeanette Madalena, aged 66. Their vehicle was returning from the Grand Plaza Shopping Centre and was heading along Wembley Road in the direction of Woodridge. At about 2.45 pm, the respondent was driving in the…

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 Allam v. Vale

Details

AGLC: Allam v Vale [2008] QDC 131
Case: [2008] QDC 131
Decision Date: 14 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Allam v. Vale involved Samuel Raymond Allam, the applicant, and Aaron Douglas James Vale, the respondent. The applicant sought compensation for a motor vehicle collision that occurred, which resulted in injuries to the applicant. The injuries included concussion, bruising, mental or nervous shock, soft tissue swelling, and a scalp laceration. The applicant was not included on the indictment against the respondent. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the applicant was entitled to compensation despite not being named on the indictment and whether the respondent was liable for the injuries sustained by the applicant in the motor vehicle collision.

The court considered the circumstances of the motor vehicle collision and the injuries sustained by the applicant. It was established that the respondent was driving dangerously, which led to the collision. The court found that the applicant's injuries were a direct result of the respondent's dangerous driving. The court also noted that the applicant had not been included on the indictment against the respondent, but this did not preclude the applicant from seeking compensation. The court held that the respondent was liable for the injuries sustained by the applicant and that the applicant was entitled to compensation.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle collision. The court found that this amount was appropriate given the nature and extent of the applicant's injuries. The court emphasised that the respondent's dangerous driving had caused the collision and the resulting injuries to the applicant. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Aaron Douglas James Vale pay the applicant Samuel Raymond Allam the sum of $15,000

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:	Allam v Vale [2008] QDC 131
PARTIES:	SAMUEL RAYMOND ALLAM (Applicant) V AARON DOUGLAS JAMES VALE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD125/07
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	27 June 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	16 May 2008
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent Aaron Douglas James Vale pay the applicant Samuel Raymond Allam the sum of $15,000
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – dangerous driving causing death – applicant not included on indictment - motor vehicle collision – injuries - concussion – bruising – mental or nervous shock - soft tissue swelling - scalp laceration
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 ss 19(1)(a), 21, 22(4), 24, 25(7), s 26
CASES:	Beardsley v Loogatha [2001] QCA 438, Georgetown v Sandow [2007] QDC 125 Hicks v The Minister for Justice and Attorney‑General [2005] QSC 44 Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337 R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 437 R v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320 RZ (by his litigation guardian) v PAE [2007] QCA 166 Wren v Gaulai [2007] QDC 125, [2008] QCA 148
COUNSEL:	Ms M McLennan for the applicant The respondent appeared in person
SOLICITORS:	Cleary Hoare for the applicant The respondent appeared in person