Bertucci v Rauhina - [2010] QDC 399

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bertucci v Rauhina & Ors [2010] QDC 399

PARTIES:

STEPHEN BERTUCCI
(Applicant)

V

PETER DOUGLAS RAUHINA
(First Respondent)

JOHN WILLIAM SKILTON
(Second Respondent)

STEPHEN JAMES HOPKINS
(Third Respondent)

BRETT DAVID PICARD
(Fourth Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3378/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

District Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 June, 16 and 30 July 2010

JUDGE:

Irwin DCJ

ORDER:

The respondents pay compensation jointly and severally to the applicant, Stephen Bertucci, in the sum of $31,500 pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondents convicted of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – where the applicant suffered facial lacerations which were cosmetically disfiguring 21 months later, a fractured nose, damaged teeth, a fractured hand and an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood – assessment of compensation

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondents convicted of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – where the applicant and the respondents were members of rival motorcycle clubs – where the respondents, together with other members of their club, ambushed the applicant and other members of his club for the purpose of revenge arising out of an earlier incident between members of the two clubs – where the applicant suffered injuries as a result – whether the applicant contributed to his injuries

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), ss 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, Schedule 1

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 110(c)

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 167

AT v FG [2004] QCA 295, cited

Boulter v Bradford [2009] QDC 80, considered

Garner v Rauhina & Ors [2010] QDC 400, considered

Gleeson v Akee [2010] QDC 22, cited

Hines v Rauhina [2010] QDC 299, considered

JMRoboSRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147, applied

Moorhouse v Parker [2008] QDC 306, considered

R v Bennett, ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 295, applied

R v Chong, ex parte Chong [2001] Qd R 301, applied

R v Kazakoff,ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320, cited

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436, applied

Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337, cited

RMC v NAC [2010] 1 Qd R 395, applied

Sheppard v Moefaaua [2008] QDC 133, considered

WHG v LJC [2010] QDC 395, cited

Wren v. Gaulai [2008] QCA 148, applied

COUNSEL:

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 Bertucci v Rauhina

Details

AGLC: Bertucci v Rauhina & Ors [2010] QDC 399
Case: [2010] QDC 399
Decision Date: 29 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bertucci v Rauhina involves Stephen Bertucci, who sought criminal compensation from the respondents, Rauhina and others, for injuries sustained during an assault. The respondents, members of a rival motorcycle club, had been convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and in company, stemming from an ambush targeting Bertucci and his club members. Bertucci suffered facial lacerations, a fractured nose, damaged teeth, a fractured hand, and an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood as a result of the incident. The court was required to determine the extent of the compensation due to Bertucci under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) and whether Bertucci had contributed to his injuries.

The legal issues addressed by the court included the calculation of compensation for the injuries sustained by Bertucci and the potential contribution he may have made to the incident. The court considered the severity and nature of the injuries, the impact on Bertucci's mental and physical health, and the circumstances leading to the assault. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether Bertucci's membership in a motorcycle club and any prior interactions with the respondents could be considered contributory factors to the attack.

In determining the compensation, the court thoroughly assessed the evidence regarding Bertucci's injuries and their long-term effects. The court recognised the significant impact of the injuries on Bertucci's life, both physically and psychologically. After considering the respondents' convictions and the evidence presented, the court concluded that Bertucci was entitled to compensation. The court awarded Bertucci $31,500 in compensation, jointly and severally from the respondents. The court determined that despite the complex circumstances, Bertucci's injuries warranted full compensation as provided under the Act.

The final orders of the court required the respondents to pay Bertucci $31,500 in compensation. This decision reflects the court's recognition of the serious injuries Bertucci sustained and the necessity for adequate compensation under the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondents pay compensation jointly and severally to the applicant, Stephen Bertucci, in the sum of $31,500 pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)

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:	Bertucci v Rauhina & Ors [2010] QDC 399
PARTIES:	STEPHEN BERTUCCI (Applicant) V PETER DOUGLAS RAUHINA (First Respondent) JOHN WILLIAM SKILTON (Second Respondent) STEPHEN JAMES HOPKINS (Third Respondent) BRETT DAVID PICARD (Fourth Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3378/09
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	District Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 June, 16 and 30 July 2010
JUDGE:	Irwin DCJ
ORDER:	*The respondents pay compensation jointly and severally to the applicant, Stephen Bertucci, in the sum of $31,500 pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act* 1995 (Qld)**
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondents convicted of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – where the applicant suffered facial lacerations which were cosmetically disfiguring 21 months later, a fractured nose, damaged teeth, a fractured hand and an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood – assessment of compensation CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondents convicted of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company – where the applicant and the respondents were members of rival motorcycle clubs – where the respondents, together with other members of their club, ambushed the applicant and other members of his club for the purpose of revenge arising out of an earlier incident between members of the two clubs – where the applicant suffered injuries as a result – whether the applicant contributed to his injuries Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), ss 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, Schedule 1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 110(c) Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 167 AT v FG [2004] QCA 295, cited Boulter v Bradford [2009] QDC 80, considered Garner v Rauhina & Ors [2010] QDC 400, considered Gleeson v Akee [2010] QDC 22, cited Hines v Rauhina [2010] QDC 299, considered JMRoboSRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147, applied Moorhouse v Parker [2008] QDC 306, considered R v Bennett, ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 295, applied R v Chong, ex parte Chong [2001] Qd R 301, applied R v Kazakoff,ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320, cited R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436, applied Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337, cited RMC v NAC [2010] 1 Qd R 395, applied Sheppard v Moefaaua [2008] QDC 133, considered WHG v LJC [2010] QDC 395, cited Wren v. Gaulai [2008] QCA 148, applied
COUNSEL: