DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Beard v Pascoe [2010] QDC 246
PARTIES:
GREGORY JOHN BEARD
(Applicant)
v
ALLAN GLEN PASCOE
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
225 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
18 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
4 June 2010
JUDGE:
Everson DCJ
ORDER:
That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $27,750.00.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310
RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
ILS QLD LIMITED for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).
The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 11 March 2008, namely grievous bodily harm.
Facts
On the evening of 27 March 2007 the respondent burst into the applicant’s residence, put him in a headlock and forced his head through a plate glass door (“the incident”).
Injuries
The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:
·A large laceration to his right forehead;
·A partial thickness scalp defect;
·A monocortical fracture of the body of the right mandible;
·The loss of a tooth.
The relevant law
COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation”.
Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes J described the process in the following terms:
“Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.”
[1][2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310
Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes:
·Item 2 Bruising/laceration etc (severe) … 3% - 5%
·Item 5 Loss or damage to teeth … 1% - 12%
·Item 7 Facial fracture (moderate) … 14% - 20%
·Item 28 Facial disfigurement or bodily scarring
(severe) … 10% - 30%
Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or…
Continue reading Beard v Pascoe
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Beard v Pascoe [2010] QDC 246
- Case
- [2010] QDC 246
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In examining the claims, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, including medical reports, witness testimonies, and expert opinions on the psychological impact of the assault. The court found that Beard's claims for both physical and psychological injuries were substantiated. The court accepted that the physical injuries were a direct result of the assault, and the psychological impact was significant and corroborated by expert evidence. The court then proceeded to assess the appropriate amount of compensation, considering the totality of Beard's injuries and their impact on his life. After a comprehensive analysis, the court concluded that Beard was entitled to compensation of $27,750.00.
The court's decision was grounded in the principle that victims of assault should be compensated for both their physical injuries and any resultant psychological trauma. The court ordered Pascoe to pay Beard the sum of $27,750.00 in compensation. This decision underscores the importance of recognising and compensating for the full extent of harm caused by violent acts, including both physical and psychological consequences. The judgment serves as a reminder of the court's duty to provide adequate redress for victims of assault.
Orders
Orders of the court
That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $27,750.00.
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.