BJE v Spoor

[2007] QDC 345

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

BJE v Spoor [2007] QDC 345

PARTIES:

BJE

Applicant

AND

JOHN HENRY SPOOR

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD1719/07

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 August 2007

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay to the applicant $30,000 compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of the offences of which the respondent was convicted on 11 December 1991.

The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – application under Code – mental or nervous shock – assessment – statutory maximum not reached.

Criminal Code s 663B.

SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12 – applied.
HW v LO [2000] QCA 377 – applied.

COUNSEL:

J Stevenson (solicitor) for the applicant

The respondent did not appear

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

The respondent was not represented

1. This is an application for compensation pursuant to s 663B of the Criminal Code. On 11 December 1991 the respondent was convicted on his own admission in the District Court at Warwick of two charges of attempted sodomy both alleged to have been committed on the applicant, one between 31 January 1986 and 1 January 1988, and one between 31 January 1990 and 14 August 1991. The applicant was born on 14 July 1984, and during the period alleged for Count 1 he was between one and three years of age, although during the sentencing hearing he was said by the Crown prosecutor to have been between four and five at the time of this offence; the sentencing judge said that he was then less than four years of age. During the period given for Count 2 the applicant was between five and seven years of age.

1. As so often happens in matters of this nature, the applicant alleges that the respondent’s conduct was in fact much more serious than the conduct of which he was ultimately convicted.  According to the report of the psychiatrist, the applicant told her that on the two occasions in question sodomy actually occurred, and that there were overall about 10 instances of sexual abuse of him by the respondent.  The psychiatrist also noted that the applicant expressed the view that sexual abuse was an “all or none” situation, which is realistic, and that makes it particularly difficult to identify an appropriate basis on which to proceed in an application of this nature, where the applicant says in effect that the two offences of which the respondent was convicted did not actually happen, but other more serious things did happen.  However, this application is brought under the Code, where the test for causation remains whether the offences materially contributed to the psychological injury:  SAM v. SAM [2001] QCA 12. The practical effect of that approach in a situation such as the present is that difficulties of this kind are to be ignored.

1. The…