Bain v Iefata - [2000] QSC 7

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Registry: Brisbane
Number: S 9920 of 1999

Before Justice Wilson

[Bain v Iefata]

Applicant: GREGORY JOHN BAIN

AND

Respondent: IUTA IEFATA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : WILSON J

Delivered: 21 January 2000

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm – determination of entitlement to compensation under Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 – assessment of compensation according to statutory compensation scheme

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

Solicitors: Gregg Lawyers for the applicant

Hearing date: 19 January 2000

This is an application by Gregory John Bain for criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

On 8 February 1999 Iuta Iefata pleaded guilty to the charge that with intent to do grievous bodily harm he unlawfully wounded the applicant on 19 January 1997. Iefata was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and 26 weeks, to be suspended after one year, with an operational period of five years.

The applicant was a bouncer at The Gig nightclub where the respondent was a patron. A fracas broke out. Iefata hit the applicant on the head with a metal bar and also inflicted two other blows, one on the arm and one on the hand. The applicant sustained deep lacerations to his head and a momentary loss of vision. He was taken to the Emergency Department of the Royal Brisbane Hospital where he was treated. X-rays revealed no skull fracture and no intra-cranial haemorrhage. Twenty stitches were inserted in his head.

I note that earlier, on 9 January 1997, the applicant had been assaulted at work. He had been kicked and punched in the head and sustained bleeding in both retinas, lacerations to the right eye and diminution in vision. However, he had been able to return to work by 16 January 1997.

The Criminal Offence Victims Act provides a scheme for the payment of compensation for injury caused by an indictable offence committed against the person of the applicant: s 19. “Injury” is defined in s 20 as bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table which is a schedule to the Act or prescribed under a regulation. Compensation under the Act is intended to assist the applicant, but not to reflect the compensation to which he or she may be entitled under common law or otherwise: s 22. The court may not award a total of more than the “scheme maximum,” which is $75,000. Various categories of injuries are set out in the compensation table together with the percentage of the scheme maximum which may be awarded for each: s 25, Schedule 1.

The applicant, through his solicitor, sought the following compensation:

1. Bruising/laceration severe 5% $3,750
[to front scalp]

2. Bruising/laceration moderate 3% $2,250
[to posterior occiput]

3. Fractured skull – minor/ 15% $11,250
brain damage moderate

4. Mental or Nervous moderate 15% $11,250
shock

5. Loss of Vision minor 2% $1,500

Totals 40% $30,000

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 Bain v Iefata

Details

AGLC: Bain v Iefata [2000] QSC 7
Case: [2000] QSC 7
Decision Date: 21/01/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bain v Iefata, the plaintiff, Gregory John Bain, sought compensation for injuries sustained during an incident where Iuta Iefata unlawfully wounded him with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This incident occurred on 19 January 1997, when Iefata, a patron at The Gig nightclub, attacked Bain, a bouncer at the establishment, with a metal bar, causing significant injuries. Iefata pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced. Bain filed an application for criminal compensation under section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, seeking various forms of compensation for his injuries.

The legal issues before the court were to determine Bain's entitlement to compensation under the statutory scheme and to assess the appropriate amount of compensation considering the injuries sustained. The court had to consider the severity and nature of Bain's injuries, the impact on his life, and the limitations of the statutory compensation scheme, which caps the total award at $75,000. Various medical reports and expert opinions were presented, detailing the extent of Bain's injuries, including bruising, lacerations, a brain injury, mental and nervous shock, and potential long-term disabilities.

Justice Wilson, in delivering the judgment, meticulously evaluated the evidence and the statutory framework. The court determined that while Bain's injuries were severe, not all claimed compensation was warranted. It was found that some of Bain's vision problems stemmed from an earlier incident, and thus were not attributable to Iefata's attack. The court awarded compensation for severe bruising and lacerations, minor to moderate brain damage, and moderate mental or nervous shock. The total compensation awarded was $26,250, reflecting the scheme's maximum limits and the specific injuries incurred.

The court ordered that Iuta Iefata pay Gregory John Bain $26,250 for the injuries sustained on 19 January 1997. This order was based on the assessed severity of the injuries and the statutory compensation scheme's guidelines, ensuring that the compensation was both fair and within legal limits.

Orders