B v C - [2003] QDC 294

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: B & Anor v. C [2003] QDC 294
PARTIES: B
and
D (Applicants)
v.
C (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

4663/02 4671/02
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
DELIVERED ON: 28 March 2003
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 20 March 2003
JUDGE: O’Brien DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent, C, pay to the applicant, D, the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court of Brisbane on 12 December 2001.

Further order that the respondent, C, pay the sum of $5,000 to the applicant, B, by way of compensation for injuries suffered by her by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court of Brisbane on 12 December 2001.

In each case order that the respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the application in such amount as may be agreed or in the absence of agreement to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where sexual offences committed by natural father – where applicants suffered mental or nervous shock – whether offences arose out of one
course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct within
the meaning of s.663B
MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410
R v. Chong ex parte Chong [2001] 2 Qd.R. 301
R v. Llorente ex parte Hendry [2001] 2 QR 415
R v. Wraight & Dakon ex parte Fullerton (1980) Qd.R. 582
Whyte v. Robinson, D.C. applic. 2274 of 1999, delivered 16
July 1999
Criminal Code 1899
Criminal Code Amendment Act 1984
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

COUNSEL:

Mr P Johns (sol) for the applicants No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Gilshenan & Luton for the applicants

These are two applications for criminal compensation which might conveniently
determined together since they involve the one respondent. On 12 December 2001
C was convicted before me of several offences of a sexual nature and sentenced to a
term of imprisonment. The victims of those offences were the present applicants
who now seek compensation in respect of injuries suffered by them as a
consequence of the commission of the offences.
Both applicants are the natural daughters of the respondent. The applicant D was
the victim of three of the offences of which the respondent was convicted. The first
such offence occurred some time during 1972 when the respondent removed the
applicant’s pyjama pants before manually stimulating her vagina with his finger.
The second, which involved digital penetration of the child’s vagina occurred
during 1975 and the third offence, an act of sodomy, occurred during 1976. The
offences involving B occurred on the one occasion in 1976 when she was in Grade
3. The respondent entered her bedroom at night and within a short space of time he
twice digitally penetrated her and then placed his penis in her vagina. I need say
nothing more about the circumstances of the offences beyond observing that there
clearly was no conduct on…

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 C

Details

AGLC: B v C [2003] QDC 294
Case: [2003] QDC 294
Decision Date: 28 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of B v C, the dispute involved the determination of criminal compensation for mental or nervous shock suffered by an applicant, D, due to sexual offences committed by her natural father, the respondent, C. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary concern was whether the offences of which the respondent was convicted could be considered to have arisen out of a single event for the purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (Qld). The court was required to consider the nature and extent of the relationship between the acts and the injuries sustained by the applicant.

The court examined the legal principles that govern the assessment of compensation under the Act. It considered whether the sexual offences were sufficiently connected to be regarded as arising out of a single event. The court noted that the legislative intent was to provide compensation to those who suffer mental or nervous shock as a result of a single criminal act, and it was necessary to determine whether the acts committed by the respondent were part of a single continuous criminal act. The court also took into account the relationship between the applicant and the respondent and the impact of the offences on the applicant's mental health.

The Supreme Court determined that the sexual offences committed by the respondent were part of a single continuous criminal act. The court held that the respondent's actions constituted a series of related events that were sufficiently connected to be considered as arising out of one incident. Consequently, the court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered as a result of the offences. The court awarded the applicant compensation in the sum of $15,000, to be paid by the respondent.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent, C, pay to the applicant, D, the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court of Brisbane on 12 December 2001.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent, C, pay to the applicant, D, the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court of Brisbane on 12 December 2001.

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 & Anor v. C [2003] QDC 294
PARTIES:	B
and
D (Applicants)
v.
C (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	4663/02 4671/02
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 March 2003
JUDGE:	O’Brien DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent, C, pay to the applicant, D, the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court of Brisbane on 12 December 2001.
Further order that the respondent, C, pay the sum of $5,000 to the applicant, B, by way of compensation for injuries suffered by her by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court of Brisbane on 12 December 2001.
In each case order that the respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the application in such amount as may be agreed or in the absence of agreement to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where sexual offences committed by natural father – where applicants suffered mental or nervous shock – whether offences arose out of one
course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct within the meaning of s.663B
MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410 R v. Chong ex parte Chong [2001] 2 Qd.R. 301 R v. Llorente ex parte Hendry [2001] 2 QR 415 R v. Wraight & Dakon ex parte Fullerton (1980) Qd.R. 582 Whyte v. Robinson, D.C. applic. 2274 of 1999, delivered 16 July 1999 Criminal Code 1899 Criminal Code Amendment Act 1984 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
COUNSEL:	Mr P Johns (sol) for the applicants No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gilshenan & Luton for the applicants