AP v Di Pino - [2011] QDC 32

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

AP v Di Pino [2011] QDC 32

PARTIES:

AP
(Applicant)

AND

CONSTANTINO DI PINO
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

OA3139/09

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 February 2011

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Order the respondent to pay the applicant $22,500 compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of the offence of which the respondent was convicted on 10 December 2003.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – mental or nervous shock –scarring caused by self harm caused by psychiatric condition which is injury.

JI v AV [2002] 2 Qd R 367 – cited.
L v L [2008] QDC 71 – not followed.
NJHE v WAE [2007] QDC 170 – cited.
PAJ v AAK [2010] QCA 78 – applied.
Riddle v Coffee [2002] QCA 337 – applied.
SAY v AZ; ex parte Attorney-General [2007] 2 Qd R 363 – applied.
Stannard v Lane [2000] QSC 86 – cited.
Vlug v Carrasco [2006] QCA 561 – applied.
Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148 - applied.
Zaicov v Jones [2002] 2 Qd R 303 – applied.

COUNSEL:

M. Holmes (Solicitor) for the applicant

M. Black for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the applicant

John P. Buzza Solicitor for the respondent

This is an application for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. Although that Act has now been repealed, the relevant incidents occurred while it was in force, as did the respondent’s conviction, and the applicant’s application was filed on 4 November 2009. The matter can therefore proceed to be heard and determined under the repealed Act.

On 10 December 2003 the respondent was convicted after a trial of one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16. The offence was committed on the applicant around lunchtime on 15 January 2002. The respondent operated a shop, and the applicant, whose mother seems to have been a friend of the respondent, would spend time at the shop doing small tasks in return for small sums of money. When not occupied with customers, the respondent would watch television in a room at the back of the shop. On this occasion the applicant was there watching it with him. The applicant had a sore back which she was rubbing, and the respondent then rubbed, and while doing that he put his hand under her arm and rested it on her left breast, on the outside of clothing, where he shook his hand on the breast.[1]
[1]The description of the conduct constituting the offence of which the respondent was convicted is based on what was said of the circumstances of the offending by the Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal in R v De Pino [2004] QCA 39. This is the most authoritative statement of that matter.

The respondent had been charged with two other counts, alleged to have been committed on the same day. Each involved touching 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 AP v Di Pino

Details

AGLC: AP v Di Pino [2011] QDC 32
Case: [2011] QDC 32
Decision Date: 17 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AP v Di Pino involved the applicant seeking compensation for injuries resulting from a criminal offence committed by the respondent. The respondent had been convicted of the offence on 10 December 2003, and the applicant sought compensation for the injuries sustained due to this incident. The case was heard in a relevant court in Australia, where the applicant argued for financial compensation based on the injuries caused by the respondent's actions.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the applicant's injuries, which included scarring from self-harm and a psychiatric condition, constituted an injury for which compensation could be claimed. The court was required to determine the extent to which the applicant's injuries were a direct result of the respondent's criminal actions and if the applicant was entitled to compensation under the applicable legal framework. The court also needed to consider the relevant legal precedents and statutes to decide on the appropriate compensation amount.

In its reasoning, the court applied various legal precedents and statutes to arrive at its decision. It examined cases such as Riddle v Coffee and PAJ v AAK, which provided guidance on compensation for injuries resulting from criminal offences. The court also considered NJHE v WAE and Vlug v Carrasco for insights into the nature of injuries that qualify for compensation. By applying these precedents, the court concluded that the applicant's injuries were indeed compensable as they were a direct consequence of the respondent's actions. The court awarded the applicant $22,500 in compensation, reflecting the severity and impact of the injuries sustained.

The final order of the court mandated that the respondent pay the applicant $22,500 as compensation for the injuries suffered due to the offence. This decision underscored the court's recognition of the applicant's right to compensation for injuries resulting from the respondent's criminal conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order the respondent to pay the applicant $22,500 compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of the offence of which the respondent was convicted on 10 December 2003.

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:	AP v Di Pino [2011] QDC 32
PARTIES:	AP (Applicant) AND CONSTANTINO DI PINO (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	OA3139/09
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 March 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 February 2011
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Order the respondent to pay the applicant $22,500 compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of the offence of which the respondent was convicted on 10 December 2003.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – mental or nervous shock –scarring caused by self harm caused by psychiatric condition which is injury. JI v AV [2002] 2 Qd R 367 – cited. L v L [2008] QDC 71 – not followed. NJHE v WAE [2007] QDC 170 – cited. PAJ v AAK [2010] QCA 78 – applied. Riddle v Coffee [2002] QCA 337 – applied. SAY v AZ; ex parte Attorney-General [2007] 2 Qd R 363 – applied. Stannard v Lane [2000] QSC 86 – cited. Vlug v Carrasco [2006] QCA 561 – applied. Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148 - applied. Zaicov v Jones [2002] 2 Qd R 303 – applied.
COUNSEL:	M. Holmes (Solicitor) for the applicant M. Black for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the applicant John P. Buzza Solicitor for the respondent