DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
CHR v FSR [2011] QDC 79
PARTIES:
CHR
(Applicant)v
FSR
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
52/2009
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:
21 April 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:
21 April 2011
JUDGE:
Dearden DCJ
ORDER:
THE RESPONDENT FSR PAY THE APPLICANT CHR THE SUM OF $80,000.
CATCHWORDS:
Application – Criminal Compensation – Indecent treatment – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
LEGISLATION:
Criminal Code Act 1899 s.663B(1) & (2) (section since repealed)
Criminal Offence Victims Act1995
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r.389(1)
Victims of Crime Assistance Act2009 s.167(2)
CASES:
R v Jones; ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524
COUNSEL:
Ms Fadden (solicitor) for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
INTRODUCTION
[1] HIS HONOUR: The respondent, FSR, was sentenced in the Beenleigh District Court on 11 September 2007 to four years imprisonment in respect of each of seven counts of indecent treatment of a girl under 16 years, under 14 years, in respect of the applicant, CLR (the respondent's daughter). The respondent's sentences were suspended after serving a period of 16 months imprisonment with an operational period of five years.
FACTS
[2] The offences occurred between 1984 and 1990, when the applicant was aged seven to 13 years old.
[3] The schedule of facts (sentence Exhibit 2) sets out the facts in respect of each of the offences as follows:
“Count 1
[4] On an unknown date between 1 January 1985 and 1 December 1987, the [applicant] was living with her family at Kingston. At this time the [applicant] was a student at a State Primary School. The [applicant] remembers lying in her bed when the [respondent] entered her bedroom and sat on the bed next to the [applicant]. He then placed his hand underneath her nightdress and used his fingers to stroke the top of her vagina and the top of her underwear. The [respondent] then pulled the sheet away from the [applicant] and lay next to her on the bed. He pulled off her underwear. The [respondent] moved one of his hands between her legs and he used his
fingers to stroke the inside of the complainant's vagina in an up and down motion. The [respondent] then left the bedroom.
Count 2
[5] Up to a week after the first incident, the [applicant] stated that she awoke in her bed to her underwear being removed down her body. The [applicant] was lying on her stomach and then saw the [respondent] kneeling over her body and removing her underwear. The [respondent] moved the legs of the [applicant] slightly apart with his hands, and then put his hands between her legs. The [respondent] touched her on the vagina with his hands and moved his hands around her inner upper thighs and buttocks. The [respondent] propped up the [applicant's] body with both of…
Continue reading CHR v FSR
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- CHR v FSR [2011] QDC 79
- Case
- [2011] QDC 79
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including medical reports and expert testimonies, to determine the validity of the applicant's PTSD diagnosis and the extent of her suffering. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to confirm the applicant's PTSD diagnosis and that her suffering was severe enough to warrant compensation. The court also noted the debilitating effects of PTSD on the applicant's life, including her inability to work and her need for ongoing therapy. Having determined that the applicant's claims were substantiated, the court proceeded to assess the appropriate amount of compensation.
In its final determination, the court awarded the applicant the sum of $80,000 in compensation. The court recognised the profound impact of the respondent's actions on the applicant's mental health and quality of life, and it emphasised the importance of compensating victims of such serious criminal conduct. The court's decision provides a clear affirmation of the rights of victims to seek redress for the harm they have suffered, and it underscores the need for adequate compensation to facilitate recovery and rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE RESPONDENT FSR PAY THE APPLICANT CHR THE SUM OF $80,000.
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.