ARW v FGR - [2007] QSC 236

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

ARW v FGR [2007] QSC 236

PARTIES:

ARW (applicant)
v
FGR (respondent)

FILE NO:

BS4280 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

DELIVERED ON:

7 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2007

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

1. That the respondent pay to the applicant pursuant to s 663B of the Criminal Code the sum of $20,000 by way of compensation for injury suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 27 June 2004 (namely counts 27, 29, and 31 on Indictment number 407 of 2004)
2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where respondent found guilty after trial of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years and two counts of supplying a dangerous drug – where applicant diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder – where application made under s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code (Q) for compensation for injuries sustained as a result of these offences – whether supplying a dangerous drug to the victim was an offence relating to the person of the victim – whether offences involved more than one course of conduct

Criminal Code, s 663AA, s663B

KAB v DJB [2000] QSC 498, distinguished
R v Jones; ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524, considered
R v Llorente; ex parte Hendry [2001] 2 Qd R 415, considered
R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe, unreported, Lee J, SC No 324 of 1995, 22 June 1995, considered
RZ (by his litigation guardian) v PAE[2007] QCA 166, considered
SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 462, considered

COUNSEL:

J Stevenson (sol) for the applicant
The respondent appeared in person

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
The respondent appeared in person

MULLINS J: The respondent was found guilty on 27 June 2004 after trial of five counts involving the applicant. Each of counts 27, 29 and 31 were indecent treatment of a child under 16 years on a date unknown between 1 January 1990 and 1 May 1990 at Brisbane. Each of counts 38 and 39 was supplying a dangerous drug (psilocin and psilocybin) with a circumstance of aggravation on a date unknown between 1 April 1990 and 1 August 1990 at Brisbane.

As a result of the respondent’s conviction on these five counts, the applicant has made an application under s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code (“Code”) for compensation for injuries sustained as a result of these offences. The application was heard on 21 June 2007. The respondent appeared in person to oppose the application and, in particular, to dispute the evidence of the applicant as to the consequences…

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 ARW v FGR

Details

AGLC: ARW v FGR [2007] QSC 236
Case: [2007] QSC 236
Decision Date: 7 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ARW v FGR involved an application for compensation under section 663B of the Criminal Code (Q) by the applicant, ARW, against the respondent, FGR, who had been convicted of multiple offences including indecent treatment of a child under 16 years and supplying a dangerous drug. The applicant sought compensation for injuries sustained as a result of these offences, which included a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining whether the offence of supplying a dangerous drug to the victim was an offence relating to the person of the victim and whether the offences involved more than one course of conduct.

The court had to address two primary legal issues. First, it needed to determine whether the offence of supplying a dangerous drug to the victim qualified as an offence relating to the person of the victim, which is a criterion for compensation under section 663B of the Criminal Code (Q). Second, the court had to consider whether the offences in question constituted more than one course of conduct, which could potentially affect the compensation eligibility. The court examined the nature of the offences and the relationship between the offences to ascertain if they were part of a single course of conduct or multiple distinct courses.

The court found that the offence of supplying a dangerous drug to the victim was indeed an offence relating to the person of the victim, thus satisfying the criteria for compensation. Furthermore, it determined that the offences did not involve more than one course of conduct, as they were part of a single, continuous act. Based on these findings, the court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation. The court awarded the applicant $20,000 in compensation and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application, which were to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the respondent pay to the applicant pursuant to s 663B of the Criminal Code the sum of $20,000 by way of compensation for injury suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 27 June 2004 (namely counts 27, 29, and 31 on Indictment number 407 of 2004)

2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed

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:	ARW v FGR [2007] QSC 236
PARTIES:	ARW (applicant) v FGR (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS4280 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
DELIVERED ON:	7 September 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 June 2007
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	1. That the respondent pay to the applicant pursuant to s 663B of the Criminal Code the sum of $20,000 by way of compensation for injury suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 27 June 2004 (namely counts 27, 29, and 31 on Indictment number 407 of 2004) 2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where respondent found guilty after trial of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years and two counts of supplying a dangerous drug – where applicant diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder – where application made under s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code (Q) for compensation for injuries sustained as a result of these offences – whether supplying a dangerous drug to the victim was an offence relating to the person of the victim – whether offences involved more than one course of conduct Criminal Code, s 663AA, s663B KAB v DJB [2000] QSC 498, distinguished R v Jones; ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524, considered R v Llorente; ex parte Hendry [2001] 2 Qd R 415, considered R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe, unreported, Lee J, SC No 324 of 1995, 22 June 1995, considered RZ (by his litigation guardian) v PAE[2007] QCA 166, considered SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 462, considered
COUNSEL:	J Stevenson (sol) for the applicant The respondent appeared in person
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant The respondent appeared in person