Byles v Palmer - [2003] QSC 295

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Byles v. Palmer [2003] QSC 295

PARTIES:

MATTHEW BYLES
(applicant)
v.
STEWART WILLIAM PALMER
(respondent)

FILE NO:

2309/03

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

11, 22 August 2003

JUDGE:

Helman J.

ORDER:

Order that the respondent pay to the applicant $7,500 by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of the commission of the offence against the applicant of which the respondent was convicted.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – application for compensation where applicant police officer not named in indictment – factors to be taken into account in determining the amount of award

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss. 19, 20, 21 and 24

SOLICITORS:

Q Solicitors for the applicant

This is an application for compensation for injury brought under the
Criminal Offence Victims Act
1995. On 6 December 2001 the respondent came before me in Brisbane to answer an indictment in which he was charged with five offences. In count 2 it was alleged that on 4 June 2000 at Brisbane he attempted unlawfully to kill Elaine Frances McMillan or another. Count 3 was an alternative charge of unlawfully attempting to strike with a projectile, and count 4 a further alternative charge of serious assault. On count 8 he was charged with unlawful possession of a dangerous drug, and on count 9 with entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence in them. The charge of attempted murder and the charges in counts 3 and 4 arose out of an incident in which, on the Crown case, the respondent, with a revolver, fired a shot from a moving car at a police car driven by the applicant, a constable of police, in which the only passenger was another police officer, Constable Elaine McMillan. The other person referred to in count 2 was of course the applicant. There was another man, Leonard Hite, charged on the same indictment with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle (count 1), being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder (count 5), an alternative charge of being an accessory after the fact to unlawfully attempting to strike with a projectile (count 6), and a further alternative charge of being an accessory after the fact to a serious assault (count 7). Hite was the driver of the car from which the respondent fired on the police car. Each accused man pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and the trial proceeded until 19 December 2001 when the respondent was found guilty by the jury on counts 2, 8, and 9. Hite was found guilty on counts 1 and 5. The jury was discharged from giving verdicts on counts 3, 4, 6, and 7. There was some delay before the respondent and Hite could be sentenced. On 10 April 2002 I sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for seventeen years on count 2 and declared his conviction to be…

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 Byles v Palmer

Details

AGLC: Byles v Palmer [2003] QSC 295
Case: [2003] QSC 295
Decision Date: 10 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Byles v Palmer, the applicant, a police officer, sought compensation for injuries sustained during the commission of an offence against him, for which the respondent was convicted. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant, who was not named in the indictment, was entitled to compensation under the applicable legislation. The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded, considering the specific circumstances of the case.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing criminal compensation and assessed the factors relevant to determining the appropriate amount of compensation. The court took into account the nature and extent of the injuries, the impact on the applicant's capacity to work and engage in daily activities, and the degree of fault attributable to the respondent. The court also considered the principles of fairness and proportionality in the context of awarding compensation to the applicant.

Having carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered as a result of the offence committed against him. The court found that the appropriate amount of compensation was $7,500, reflecting the specific circumstances of the case and the factors outlined in the legislation. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $7,500 by way of compensation for the injuries sustained.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the respondent pay to the applicant $7,500 by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of the commission of the offence against the applicant of which the respondent was convicted.

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:	Byles v. Palmer [2003] QSC 295
PARTIES:	MATTHEW BYLES (applicant) v. STEWART WILLIAM PALMER (respondent)
FILE NO:	2309/03
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 September 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	11, 22 August 2003
JUDGE:	Helman J.
ORDER:	Order that the respondent pay to the applicant $7,500 by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of the commission of the offence against the applicant of which the respondent was convicted.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – application for compensation where applicant police officer not named in indictment – factors to be taken into account in determining the amount of award Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss. 19, 20, 21 and 24
SOLICITORS:	Q Solicitors for the applicant