B v B - [2002] QDC 327

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: B v B [2002] QDC 327
PARTIES: KB
Applicant
-v-
LB
Respondent
FILE NO/S: D 5 of 2002
DIVISION: Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING: Criminal Compensation Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 10 December 2002
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 15 October 2002
JUDGE: O’Sullivan DCJ
ORDER: Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $20,000 by
way of compensation for injuries suffered, and the costs of
the Application.
CATCHWORDS: Criminal Compensation – s663(B) Criminal Code –
“course of conduct”
COUNSEL: Mr Scott Lynch (for applicant)
SOLICITORS: Parke Lawyers (for Applicant)

[1]	This is a criminal compensation application under s 663B of the Criminal Code by KB for compensation following the conviction of LB.

When I first heard this matter on 15 October 2002 I found it impossible to reconcile what I have said in my sentencing remarks and what is contained in the certificate of conviction. This has now been clarified and I attach a schedule. The lack of clarity was compounded by a possible error in the Applicant’s Affidavit filed by leave. The Applicant has since filed a further Affidavit submitted to me on 11 November, in which the Applicant deposes to moving to Acland “in about late May 1987”.
It is clear that there are a large number of counts. In further written submissions Counsel for the applicant set out the counts, the number of the count and the description of each offence. My Associate has undertaken a further analysis of the counts and this is in the attached schedule.

[4]	Counsel for the applicant submitted there were three courses of conduct as set out in his written submissions.

The time gap between the counts, and the time gap between the three series of conduct suggested by Counsel, is relevant to the question how many courses of conduct there were: one, two or three.
In the Court of Appeal decision of Hendry v. Llorente [2000] QCA 377 the Court set out the applicable principles in order to decide whether there has been the same course of conduct. The Chief Justice said in Hendry at paragraph 7,
Assaying a definition of ‘course of conduct’ for purposes of section 663Bthe words connote in this context a succession or series of acts (or omissions) which, because of a sufficiently close interrelation, whether by nature, time, place or otherwise, display, in aggregation, an identifiable overall pattern. The American cases provide assistance pointing to the need for an element of continuity and regularity.
I therefore need to have regard to the nature, time, place, continuity and regularity of the offences.
The Chief Justice further said in Hendry at paragraph 8,
It goes without saying that one cannot be prescriptive of the requisite extent of relationship. One obviously cannot, for example, specify a maximum duration for any separate course of conduct. Given a high level of regularity and consistency in the

time, place and nature of the acts, a course of conduct might persist over days, weeks or months.…

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 B v B

Details

AGLC: B v B [2002] QDC 327
Case: [2002] QDC 327
Decision Date: 10/12/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of B v B involves a dispute between two parties, the Applicant and the Respondent, regarding compensation for injuries suffered by the Applicant as a consequence of a criminal act committed by the Respondent. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Applicant sought compensation under section 663B of the Criminal Code, which allows for the payment of compensation by the offender to the victim for injuries resulting from criminal acts.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Applicant's injuries were directly attributable to the Respondent's criminal conduct, as required by section 663B of the Criminal Code. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded, taking into account the extent of the Applicant's injuries and the financial impact on them.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including medical reports, witness statements, and other relevant documentation. The court found that the Applicant's injuries were indeed a direct result of the Respondent's criminal actions, and thus, the Respondent was liable for compensation. The court assessed the Applicant's injuries and their impact on their life, including the need for ongoing medical treatment, and determined that the appropriate compensation was $20,000. The court also ordered the Respondent to pay the costs of the application.

The court's final orders were that the Respondent must pay the Applicant the sum of $20,000 by way of compensation for the injuries suffered, as well as the costs of the application. This decision provides clarity on the application of section 663B of the Criminal Code and the process for determining compensation in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $20,000 by

way of compensation for injuries suffered, and the costs of

the Application.

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:	B v B [2002] QDC 327
PARTIES:	KB Applicant -v- LB Respondent
FILE NO/S:	D 5 of 2002
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Compensation Application
ORIGINATING
COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 October 2002
JUDGE:	O’Sullivan DCJ
ORDER:	Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $20,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered, and the costs of the Application.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Compensation – s663(B) Criminal Code – “course of conduct”
COUNSEL:	Mr Scott Lynch (for applicant)
SOLICITORS:	Parke Lawyers (for Applicant)