Chapman v Pakura - [2010] QDC 61

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Chapman v Pakura [2010] QDC 61

PARTIES:

ALAN PETER CHAPMAN

(Applicant)

v

SELINA JOYCE PAKURA

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3339/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2010

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $6,000.00 by way of compensation pursuant to s.24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of armed robbery in company which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Beenleigh on 16 October 2008.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – armed robbery in company – mental or nervous shock – post traumatic stress disorder caused by three separate robberies – respondent involved as driver in respect of one robbery – principal offender absconded – impact on assessment

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 20, s 22(3), s 22(4), s 24, s 25(2), s 25(4), s 25(7), s 25(8), s 33, s 40

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 155

R v Ward, ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 QdR 436; [2000] QCA 493

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149

SAY v AZ [2007] 2 QdR 363; [2006] QCA 462

Wren v Gulai [2008] 2 Qd R 383; [2008] QCA 148

COUNSEL:

D A Love for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Dale & Fallu for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

Introduction

The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to s 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for emotional injuries caused by a robbery in which the respondent participated on 27 February 2006.

The Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 was repealed by s.149 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 which came into force on 1 December 2009. The originating application was filed on 20 November 2009. The transitional provision in s.155 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 requires the application to be determined according to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

On 16 October 2008 in the District Court at Beenleigh the respondent pleaded guilty to armed robbery in company and other offences. She was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with a parole release date fixed after approximately 16 months on 24 December 2008. The respondent had served 414 days pre-sentence custody from 29 August 2007 to the date of sentence which was declared to be imprisonment served under the sentence.

The respondent was served with the application and supporting affidavits on 2 March 2010. There was no appearance by or for the respondent.

Circumstances of the offence

The applicant was employed at a service station at Booval. On 27 February 2006 the applicant’s co-offender, a male person entered the service station armed with a knife. He demanded money and cigarettes. The respondent was the driver of the motor vehicle utilised in connection with the robbery. The applicant’s co-offender was charged but absconded. As at the date…

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 Chapman v Pakura

Details

AGLC: Chapman v Pakura [2010] QDC 61
Case: [2010] QDC 61
Decision Date: 9 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chapman v Pakura was heard in the Queensland Magistrates Court. The applicant, Chapman, sought compensation for injuries sustained during an armed robbery in company. The respondent, Pakura, had been involved as the driver in one of the robberies. The principal offender absconded before trial. The dispute centred around the extent of Chapman's injuries and the appropriate level of compensation under section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

The court had to determine the nature and extent of the injuries Chapman suffered as a result of the armed robbery, and whether they warranted compensation under the Act. Chapman claimed to have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder due to the three separate robberies. The court also needed to assess the impact of Pakura's involvement as the driver in one of the robberies on the compensation assessment. The principal offender's absconding was a complicating factor that the court had to consider in its decision.

The court found that Chapman had indeed suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the armed robberies. Despite the principal offender absconding, the court held that Pakura was still liable for the crimes committed as part of the company. The court awarded Chapman the sum of $6,000.00 as compensation for the injuries sustained. The decision was based on the evidence of the psychological impact on Chapman and the statutory provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $6,000.00 by way of compensation for the injuries sustained as a result of the offence of armed robbery in company.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $6,000.00 by way of compensation pursuant to s.24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of armed robbery in company which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Beenleigh on 16 October 2008.

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:	Chapman v Pakura [2010] QDC 61
PARTIES:	ALAN PETER CHAPMAN (Applicant) v SELINA JOYCE PAKURA (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3339/09
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2010
JUDGE:	Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $6,000.00 by way of compensation pursuant to s.24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of armed robbery in company which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Beenleigh on 16 October 2008.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – armed robbery in company – mental or nervous shock – post traumatic stress disorder caused by three separate robberies – respondent involved as driver in respect of one robbery – principal offender absconded – impact on assessment Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 20, s 22(3), s 22(4), s 24, s 25(2), s 25(4), s 25(7), s 25(8), s 33, s 40 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 155 R v Ward, ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 QdR 436; [2000] QCA 493 RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149 SAY v AZ [2007] 2 QdR 363; [2006] QCA 462 Wren v Gulai [2008] 2 Qd R 383; [2008] QCA 148
COUNSEL:	D A Love for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Dale & Fallu for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent