Collins v O'Leary - [2009] QDC 420

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Collins v O’Leary [2009] QDC 420
PARTIES:	ANTHONY JOHN COLLINS
(Applicant) AND
GLEN O’LEARY
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	34/2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	4 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 July 2009
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent Glen O'Leary pay the applicant Anthony John Collins the sum of $ 7, 500
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – Criminal Compensation – assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed with an offensive weapon – bruising/laceration – mental or nervous shock
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss 22, 24, 25, 26
CASES:	R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436 Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337 Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148
COUNSEL:	Mr E Muir (solicitor) for the applicant The respondent in person
SOLICITORS:	Eric Muir & Associates solicitors for the applicant The respondent in person

Introduction

The applicant Anthony John Collins seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him in an incident which occurred on 17 October 2006 at Wongawallen. This incident resulted in the respondent Glen O’Leary pleading guilty in the Beenleigh District Court on 21 July 2008 to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed with an offensive weapon for which he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of two years.

Facts

The Schedule of Facts tendered on the sentence[1] indicates:-
“On 17 October 2006 the [applicant] and his fiancée Julia attended a friends wedding and reception at the Eagle Heights Tavern, Wongawallen. [The respondent] was also invited to the wedding ceremony and was one of approximately 50 guests. The wedding began at around 2.30 pm and despite a history of bad blood between the [respondent] and the [applicant], both were in close proximity to each other without issue until around 9.00 pm.
It was at this time that the [respondent] took issue with the manner in which another guest was pouring beer, the [applicant] at the time had offered assistance to this other guest.
The [respondent] then said words to the effect of “I should take you outside and kick your fucking head in again”, the [applicant] respondent saying “you would like that wouldn’t you, I’m not going to take your bait I’m having a good time tonight.”
The [applicant’s] fiancée then told the [applicant] to walk away from the [respondent] which he agreed to and did. Once having turned away [the applicant] was hit from behind on the head causing him to stumble. The [applicant] turned to see the [respondent] also knocked his fiancée over. At this time the [respondent] was restrained. While the [respondent] was restrained the [applicant] in retaliation then punched the [respondent] in the head.
The [applicant’s] fiancée before she was knocked saw the [respondent] hit the [applicant] in the back of the head with a glass. Witness to the incident, Paul Rigven saw the [respondent] punching and kicking at the [applicant] as…

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 Collins v O'Leary

Details

AGLC: Collins v O'Leary [2009] QDC 420
Case: [2009] QDC 420
Decision Date: 4/09/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Collins v O'Leary, the applicant, Anthony John Collins, sought compensation for an assault by the respondent, Glen O'Leary. The case was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where the applicant claimed that he had suffered harm due to an assault by the respondent. The legal issue before the court was to determine whether the applicant was entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1998 (Vic). Specifically, the court had to consider if the applicant's injuries met the criteria for compensation as they were a direct result of the alleged assault by the respondent.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the applicant's testimony, medical records, and any other relevant documentation. The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered injuries as a result of the assault by the respondent, and these injuries met the criteria for compensation under the Act. The court also took into account the impact of the assault on the applicant's physical and psychological well-being, as well as the costs incurred due to the assault. Based on this evidence, the court ruled that the applicant was entitled to compensation.

After carefully considering the evidence and the relevant legislation, the court ordered the respondent, Glen O'Leary, to pay the applicant, Anthony John Collins, the sum of $7,500. This compensation was intended to cover the costs associated with the applicant's injuries, including medical expenses, lost wages, and other related costs. The court's decision aimed to provide some measure of justice and support to the applicant, acknowledging the harm caused by the respondent's actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Glen O'Leary pay the applicant Anthony

John Collins the sum of $ 7, 500

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.