AT v FG

Case [2004] QCA 295

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

AT v FG  [2004] QCA 295

PARTIES:

AT
(applicant/appellant)
v
FG
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 588 of 2004
DC No 1 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

13 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 June 2004

JUDGE:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPERATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – respondent convicted of two counts of indecent dealing, three counts of carnal knowledge, one court of exposing to indecent videotape, one count of procuring and one count of maintaining an unlawful relationship – where particulars of offence committed over period both before and after Criminal Offence Victims Compensation Act 1995 – whether appropriate compensation awarded in respect of maintaining count – whether compensation awarded manifestly inadequate

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 25, s 26, Schedule 1
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 229B, s 663A, s 663AA, s 663B

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld), Regulation 1A, Regulation 2A

B v B [2000] QSC 498, SC No 8509 of 2000, 22 December 2000, applied
HW v LO [2000] QCA 377, Appeal No 3016 of 2000, 15 September 2000, followed
HV v LN [2000] QCA 472, Appeal No 8149 of 2000, 24 November 2000, considered
JI v AV [2001] QCA 510, Appeal No 6491 of 2001, 23 November 2001, followed

MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410, Appeal No 6042 of 2000, 6 October 2000, followed

COUNSEL:

D Gardiner for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bradley Munt & Co Solicitors for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

  1. WILLIAMS JA:  This is an appeal from an assessment of criminal compensation.  Particulars of the relevant offences are set out in the reasons for judgment of Philippides J.

  1. The first specific charge was said to have occurred between 14 October 1988 and 15 October 1990. No date can be discerned from the material with respect to the commission of the last specific charge (count 7) though it would appear to be in late 1996. The final count (count 8) was a charge of maintaining a sexual relationship with the appellant from 3 July 1989 (the date when s 229B of the Criminal Code came into force) and 15 October 1996 (the appellant’s 16th birthday). 

  1. The assessment of compensation is complicated by the fact that s 663A, s 663AA, and s 663B of the Criminal Code applied with respect to the assessment of quantum of compensation for offences prior to 18 December 1995 when the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) came into force. The problems with assessing compensation in those circumstances were discussed by this court in

Continue reading AT v FG

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
AT v FG [2004] QCA 295
Case
[2004] QCA 295
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AT v FG involved a claim for criminal compensation by AT, who had been a victim of multiple serious sexual offences committed by FG. The respondent, FG, was convicted of two counts of indecent dealing, three counts of carnal knowledge, one count of exposing to an indecent videotape, one count of procuring, and one count of maintaining an unlawful relationship. The offences occurred over a period spanning both before and after the commencement of the Criminal Offence Victims Compensation Act 1995. AT applied for compensation under the Act, seeking an appropriate award in relation to the offences. The central legal issues revolved around whether the compensation awarded was appropriate and sufficient for the offence of maintaining an unlawful relationship and whether the overall compensation awarded was manifestly inadequate.

The court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the extent of the harm suffered by AT, and the principles guiding compensation under the Act. It evaluated whether the compensation awarded was commensurate with the severity and impact of the offences. The court found that the compensation awarded was not manifestly inadequate and was in line with the statutory guidelines and precedents. It also held that the compensation for the offence of maintaining an unlawful relationship was appropriate, considering the particulars of the case.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed by the court. The decision affirmed the compensation awarded to AT, reflecting the court's view that the amount was fair and just under the circumstances. The court's ruling underscored the importance of assessing each case individually to ensure that victims of serious offences receive adequate compensation in accordance with the statutory framework.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.