Colson v. Smits - [2007] QDC 68

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Colson v Smits [2007] QDC 068

PARTIES:

CASSANDRA JOY COLSON

(Applicant)

AND

ANTHONY LEE SMITS

(First Respondent)

AND

RICHARD JAMES TORRENS

(Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD781/07

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 April 2007

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

The Respondents or either of them pay the Applicant the sum of $24,750.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the Respondents to the Applicant for which the Respondents were convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 17 January 2006 and 28 October 2005 respectively.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – two offenders – robbery in company with personal violence – where applicant and partner attacked at railway station – where applicant sustained bruising and lacerations – where applicant diagnosed with acute post traumatic stress disorder – joint and several liability of offenders.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s 26 (6)(7)(8).

COUNSEL:

Mr A Maher for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondents.

SOLICITORS:

Trilby Misso Lawyers for the applicant.

Introduction:

In this application Cassandra Joy Colson (“the applicant”) claims compensation under part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for bodily injury she sustained arising out of the criminal conduct of Anthony Lee Smits and Richard James Torrens (“the respondents”) who were convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 17 January 2006 and 28 October 2005 respectively for the offences of robbery with personal violence and robbery in company with personal violence to the applicant on 17 January 2005.

The respondents, although being served with the application and supporting documents, made no appearance at the hearing.

The application for compensation is made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:

(a) the affidavit with exhibits of the applicant sworn 7 February 2007 and filed in this court on 20 March 2007;

(b) the affidavit with exhibit of Joanna Lynch, medical practitioner, sworn 15 December 2006 and filed in this court on 20 March 2007;

(c) the affidavit with exhibit of Barbara McGuire, psychiatrist, sworn 15 December 2006 and filed in this court on 20 March 2007;

(d) the affidavit with exhibits of Amy Sue Marr, solicitor, sworn 16 March 2007 and filed in this court on 20 March 2007;

(e) the affidavit of Nigel Peter Silcock, clerk, sworn 22 March 2007 and filed in this court on 4 April 2007;

(f) the affidavit of Keith William Stubbins, bailiff, sworn 29 March 2007 and filed in this court on 4 April 2007;

(g) the affidavit of Timothy Feely, Deputy Director of Community Services and Development, sworn 2 April 2007 and filed by leave in this court on 10 April 2007.

Facts:

The applicant and her companion were attacked by the respondents at a suburban railway station in Brisbane, as a result of which she was struck several times and sustained various bodily injuries and bruising as set out…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Colson v. Smits and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] QDC 68
Decision Date: 19 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Colson v. Smits, the Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining a compensation claim from an incident of violent crime. The applicant, Colson, sought compensation for injuries and trauma resulting from a robbery at a railway station where he and his partner were attacked. The injuries sustained by the applicant included bruising and lacerations, and he was diagnosed with acute post-traumatic stress disorder. The respondents, Smits and another offender, were convicted in the District Court at Brisbane for their roles in the crime. The legal dispute centred on whether the applicants were entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act 2003 (Qld) and, if so, the quantum of compensation.

The court was required to address several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to determine whether the applicant qualified for compensation under the relevant statutory provisions. Secondly, it needed to assess the extent of the injuries and the impact of the trauma on the applicant’s life. Thirdly, the court had to consider the principles of joint and several liability as applied to the offenders. The applicants argued that both offenders were jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the compensation, meaning either offender could be held responsible for the entire sum. The respondents contended that the compensation should be apportioned based on their respective degrees of fault.

The Court of Appeal held that the applicant was entitled to compensation. It determined that the injuries and the subsequent diagnosis of acute post-traumatic stress disorder qualified as compensable injuries under the Act. The court also found that the principles of joint and several liability applied, meaning either offender could be held responsible for the full amount of compensation. The quantum of compensation was set at $24,750, reflecting the severity of the injuries and the impact on the applicant's life. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that victims of violent crime receive appropriate compensation for their suffering and loss.

The final orders of the court mandated that the respondents or either of them pay the applicant the sum of $24,750 as compensation for the injuries and trauma caused by the respondents. The decision underscores the commitment of the courts to provide redress to victims of crime, ensuring they receive appropriate recognition and compensation for their suffering.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondents or either of them pay the Applicant the sum of $24,750.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the Respondents to the Applicant for which the Respondents were convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 17 January 2006 and 28 October 2005 respectively.

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:	Colson v Smits [2007] QDC 068
PARTIES:	CASSANDRA JOY COLSON (Applicant) AND ANTHONY LEE SMITS (First Respondent) AND RICHARD JAMES TORRENS (Second Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD781/07
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 April 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 April 2007
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	The Respondents or either of them pay the Applicant the sum of $24,750.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the Respondents to the Applicant for which the Respondents were convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 17 January 2006 and 28 October 2005 respectively.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – two offenders – robbery in company with personal violence – where applicant and partner attacked at railway station – where applicant sustained bruising and lacerations – where applicant diagnosed with acute post traumatic stress disorder – joint and several liability of offenders. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s 26 (6)(7)(8).
COUNSEL:	Mr A Maher for the applicant. No appearance for the respondents.
SOLICITORS:	Trilby Misso Lawyers for the applicant.