DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Bennett v Dowd [2011] QDC 11
PARTIES:
RICHARD LANCE BENNETT
(Applicant)AND
CAMERON CHRISTOPHER DOWD
(Respondent)FILE NO:
6/10
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:
18 February 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:
22 December 2010
JUDGE:
Dearden DCJ
ORDER:
The respondent Cameron Christopher Dowd pay the applicant Richard Lance Bennett the sum of $52,500.
CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION:
CASES:
APPLICATION – Criminal Compensation – grievous bodily harm – fractured skull – brain damage – facial palsy as analogous to facial disfigurement – mental or nervous shock – loss of hearing
Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 s.24.
Victims of Crime Assistance Act2009 ss. 154 and 155.
COUNSEL:
Ms Y. Chekirova for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Campbell & White Lawyers for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
Introduction
The respondent, Cameron Christopher Dowd pleaded guilty (relevantly) in the Beenleigh District Court on 16 April 2008 to one count of grievous bodily harm in respect of the applicant, Richard Lance Bennett. The respondent was sentenced by me at the Beenleigh District Court on 18 June 2008 (relevantly) to four years imprisonment, suspended after serving 12 months imprisonment, with an operational period of five years. The respondent received concurrent sentences for unrelated counts including armed robbery, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and common assault.
Facts
The applicant was the occupier of a house in Marsden. On 20 January 2007, the applicant held a party at his house to celebrate his daughter’s 18th birthday. After a disturbance involving the respondent and another person (resulting in a charge of common assault against the respondent), the applicant told the respondent and his friends to get out of his house. The applicant pushed a party guest, Joshua Quinlan (who had been invited to the party, but had then attended with two car loads of uninvited guests), once. A third person pulled apart the applicant and Joshua Quinlan to prevent them from fighting. The applicant was then speaking to Joshua Quinlan. At this stage, the respondent ran in and hit the applicant in the back of the head with a fence paling. The applicant immediately dropped to the ground as a result of this blow.[1]
[1] Exhibit E (Schedule of Facts) affidavit of Abigail Webb sworn 23 December 2009.
Injuries
The applicant suffered the following injuries:
(i) right petrous temple fracture (fracture to the right temple);
(ii) right frontoparietal linear minimally displaced fracture (undisplaced fracture in the skull, underneath the hairline);
(iii) small right frontoparietal extradural haematoma (collection of blood underneath the fracture to the right temple);
(iv) small right contusion of the posterior left temporal lobe (bruise to the brain, less than 1 cm in diameter);
(v) small left sided acute subdural haematoma and traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage;
(vi) right facial nerve palsy; and
(vii) right sided deafness.[2]
[2] Exhibit E, affidavit of…
Continue reading Bennett v Dowd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bennett v Dowd [2011] QDC 11
- Case
- [2011] QDC 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the criteria for awarding criminal injury compensation under the relevant statutory provisions. It considered the severity and nature of the injuries sustained by the applicant, including the fractured skull and brain damage, as well as the long-term effects such as facial palsy, which the court found to be analogous to facial disfigurement. The court also assessed the impact of the loss of hearing and the mental or nervous shock experienced by the applicant. In determining the appropriate quantum of damages, the court took into account the totality of the applicant's injuries, their impact on his life, and the need for ongoing medical treatment and support.
After carefully weighing all the evidence and submissions, the court found that the applicant's injuries and the resulting consequences were sufficient to warrant the award of criminal injury compensation. The court acknowledged the severity of the applicant's injuries and the significant impact they had on his physical and mental well-being. It determined that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the sum of $52,500. The court ordered the respondent to pay this amount to the applicant as compensation for the grievous bodily harm inflicted upon him.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent Cameron Christopher Dowd pay the applicant Richard Lance Bennett the sum of $52,500.
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.