Clark v Scantlebury

Case [2010] QDC 381


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Clark v Scantlebury [2010] QDC 381
PARTIES:  ALAN GLENN CLARK
(Applicant)
V
BARBARA SCANTLEBURY
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:  115/2009
DIVISION:  Civil
PROCEEDING:  Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING 
COURT:  Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:  7 October, 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:  13 September 2010
JUDGE:  Dearden DCJ
ORDER:  The respondent Barbara Scantlebury pay the applicant
Alan Glenn Clark the sum of $9,000.
CATCHWORDS:  Application – criminal compensation – assault – mental or
nervous shock – causation – vulnerability
LEGISLATION:  Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 s. 20, s. 21, s. 25(7).
Victims of Crime Assistance Act (Qld) 2009 s.167(2).
CASES:  Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214.
Summers v Dougherty [2000] QSC 365.
SM obo M-H v NK [2005] QDC 408.
RZ v PAE [2007] QCA 166.
SAY v AZ ex-parte Attorney General [2006] QCA 462.
COUNSEL:  E Williams for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:  Colin Patino & Company Solicitors for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

  1. The respondent, Barbara Scantlebury, appeared before me at the Beenleigh District Court on 1 August 2007 and pleaded guilty to one count of common assault of the applicant Alan Glenn Clark on 17 April, 2006. The respondent at the same hearing pleaded guilty to a wilful damage on 17 April, 2006 (the applicant’s car windows), and entering premises and causing wilful damage on 6 July, 2006 (the applicant’s rental property). In respect of the common assault count (the only count relevant to these criminal compensation proceedings),[1] the applicant was sentenced to three months imprisonment. The respondent was sentenced to concurrent sentences of six months imprisonment (in respect of the wilful damage count) and 12 months imprisonment (with respect to the enter premises dwelling and commit wilful damage count). In addition, the respondent was ordered to serve six months of a suspended sentence imposed on 1 August 2007 and breached by the offending. A parole release date of 1 August 2007 (the date of sentence) was set.[2]

    [1] Criminal Offence Victims Act s.20.

    [2]            Exhibit MM2 (Sentencing remarks) pp 3-4 Affidavit of Mark Meikle sworn 21 May, 2009.

Facts

  1. The applicant was the landlord of the respondent. On 17 April 2006, the applicant went to the respondent’s house to serve a notice to leave on her for unpaid rent. The applicant knocked on the door. The respondent invited him in and asked if the rent had been paid “last Tuesday”. The applicant told the respondent that the rent had not been paid. The respondent and another resident, Ms Laverne McSweeney began yelling about a third person who had been living at the house. The respondent told the applicant that the third person had stolen the rent money. The applicant sat quietly and listened while the respondent made excuses for not paying the rent, but after 10 or 15 minutes, the respondent became aggressive and started yelling at the applicant, claiming she was not behind in the rent and that the applicant…

Continue reading Clark v Scantlebury

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Clark v Scantlebury [2010] QDC 381
Case
[2010] QDC 381
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clark v Scantlebury involved Alan Glenn Clark, the applicant, seeking criminal injuries compensation against Barbara Scantlebury, the respondent. The dispute arose from an incident where Clark was allegedly assaulted by Scantlebury, leading to mental and nervous shock. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether Scantlebury was liable to pay Clark compensation for the mental injury he sustained as a result of the alleged assault.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent was responsible for the applicant's mental injury and if the compensation sought was justified. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Clark's mental or nervous shock was a direct consequence of the alleged assault and if Clark had a pre-existing vulnerability that could have contributed to his condition. The court also had to evaluate the causation link between the alleged assault and Clark's mental injury.

The court found that the respondent was indeed responsible for the applicant's mental injury, which was a direct result of the alleged assault. The court determined that the link between the assault and Clark's mental condition was sufficiently direct and that Clark's pre-existing vulnerabilities did not break the chain of causation. The court held that the respondent was liable to pay the applicant compensation for the mental injury sustained. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $9,000 as criminal injuries compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Barbara Scantlebury pay the applicant

Alan Glenn Clark the sum of $9,000.

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.