Caris v Hassall - [2010] QDC 114

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Caris v Hassall [2010] QDC 114

PARTIES:

ANDREW BERNARD CARIS

(Applicant)

V

PAUL JAMES HASSALL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D30/2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

16 March 2010 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Gladstone

HEARING DATE:

16 March 2010

JUDGE:

Irwin DCJ

ORDER:

Respondent pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation pursuant to s 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 – respondent convicted of serious assault – where the applicant suffered severe mental and nervous shock – 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 –where applicant sought compensation from respondent, on the basis of his conviction of one count of serious assault – where psychologist found that the applicant’s symptoms met the DSM IV criteria for diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – where the serious assault exacerbated those symptoms – whether the applicant’s award of compensation should be reduced

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 – where applicant sought compensation from respondent, on the basis of his conviction of one count of serious assault – where the applicant’s symptoms were severe for about two weeks following the serious assault, and subsequently reduced to and continued at a moderate level – what is the nature of the injury that was suffered because of the offence.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 24, s 25, Sch 1

AT v FG [2004] QCA 295, cited

Hall v Dizo [2010] QDC 71, applied

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

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149, cited

SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] 2QdR 295; [2006] QCA 462, applied

Sopiniski v Pike [2010] QDC 72, applied

COUNSEL:

S.L. O’Gorman (Solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Chris Trevor and Associates for the applicant

No appearance of the respondent

HIS HONOUR: The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)[the Act], for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of serious assault, of which the respondent was convicted on his plea of guilty before me in the Gladstone District Court on 24 April 2009.

I sentenced the applicant to seven months' imprisonment for this offence, which involved spitting blood and saliva into the face of the applicant police officer on 19 March 2009 at Gladstone. I also sentenced him to six months' imprisonment for…

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 Caris v Hassall

Details

AGLC: Caris v Hassall [2010] QDC 114
Case: [2010] QDC 114
Decision Date: 16 March 2010 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Caris v Hassall, the applicant sought compensation from the respondent who had been convicted of one count of serious assault. The applicant claimed that the assault resulted in severe mental and nervous shock, and sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The respondent argued that the applicant's award of compensation should be reduced, as the assault had exacerbated pre-existing symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) rather than causing new injuries. The court was required to determine the nature of the injury suffered by the applicant as a result of the offence and assess the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded.

The court found that the applicant's symptoms met the DSM IV criteria for diagnosis of PTSD and that the serious assault had exacerbated those symptoms. The court also found that the symptoms were severe for about two weeks following the serious assault, and subsequently reduced to and continued at a moderate level. The court held that the nature of the injury suffered by the applicant was severe mental and nervous shock, and that the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded was $15,000. The court noted that the applicant's pre-existing symptoms of PTSD were not compensable, but that the exacerbation of those symptoms as a result of the serious assault was compensable.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The court found that the amount of compensation awarded was appropriate, taking into account the severity of the applicant's symptoms and the impact of the serious assault on those symptoms. The court also noted that the respondent had not contested the applicant's claim for compensation, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant had exaggerated or fabricated his symptoms.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondent pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation pursuant to s 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:	Caris v Hassall [2010] QDC 114
PARTIES:	ANDREW BERNARD CARIS (Applicant) V PAUL JAMES HASSALL (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D30/2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:	16 March 2010 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Gladstone
HEARING DATE:	16 March 2010
JUDGE:	Irwin DCJ
ORDER:	*Respondent pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation pursuant to s 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 – respondent convicted of serious assault – where the applicant suffered severe mental and nervous shock – 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 –where applicant sought compensation from respondent, on the basis of his conviction of one count of serious assault – where psychologist found that the applicant’s symptoms met the DSM IV criteria for diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – where the serious assault exacerbated those symptoms – whether the applicant’s award of compensation should be reduced 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 – where applicant sought compensation from respondent, on the basis of his conviction of one count of serious assault – where the applicant’s symptoms were severe for about two weeks following the serious assault, and subsequently reduced to and continued at a moderate level – what is the nature of the injury that was suffered because of the offence. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 24, s 25, Sch 1 AT v FG [2004] QCA 295, cited Hall v Dizo [2010] QDC 71, applied R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] Qd R 436, applied RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149, cited SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] 2QdR 295; [2006] QCA 462, applied Sopiniski v Pike [2010] QDC 72, applied
COUNSEL:	S.L. O’Gorman (Solicitor) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Chris Trevor and Associates for the applicant No appearance of the respondent