Corne v. Jansen - [2008] QDC 262

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Corne v Jansen [2008] QDC 262

PARTIES:

LYNETTE JUNE CORNE

(Applicant)

v

ANTONIOUS FRANKLIN JANSEN

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

523 of 2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Southport

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2008

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDER:

I order Mr Jansen pay Ms Corne $21,000 by way of compensation for injuries she sustained as a result of the offence for which Mr Jansen was convicted on 7 December 2005.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – assessment of compensation – surgical scar – other contributions to psychological condition

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 25(7)
R v Pangilinan; Ex parte Owens [2001] QSC 391 – followed
Say v Az; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462 - applied
Zaicov & McKenna v Jones [2001] QCA 442 - applied

COUNSEL:

N/A

SOLICITORS:

O’Keefe Mahoney Bennett for the applicant

This is an application by Ms Corne pursuant to s24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for compensation for injuries she sustained on 2 December 2003 when she was the victim of a serious assault by Mr Jansen. Mr Jansen pleaded guilty to that offence on 7 December 2005. Mr Jansen was personally served with the application and supporting material. He did not appear at the hearing.

On the day of the offence Ms Corne, who was a Constable of Police, was called to respond to a report of domestic violence. Mr Jansen was affected by alcohol and was aggressive and argumentative. He shook Ms Corne violently causing immediate and severe pain to her neck. He also punched her body and shoulder a number of times causing bruising, pain and an injury to her shoulder which eventually required corrective surgery. After a violent struggle, Mr Jansen was restrained and taken into custody. Ms Corne experienced severe pain and discomfort and required immediate medical attention.

Mr Jansen sustained a hyperflexion/hyperextension neck injury from which she suffered for approximately six months. This has now fully resolved. The blows to her left shoulder area caused a subacromial bursitis which required surgery. After that her shoulder stabilised but Ms Corne suffers a permanent impairment of function of the left shoulder which Dr Stabler has assessed at 3%. She also bears an unsightly surgical scar (5.1cm x .9cm) to the front of her left shoulder. The scar is clearly visible if Ms Corne wears sleeveless attire.

In assessing compensation, it is incumbent upon the court to ensure there is no duplication of compensation but “it is equally important to ensure that an applicant is as fully compensated as the current scheme properly permits.” (R v Pangilinan; Ex parte Owens)

It is certainly open to separately assess the injury to the shoulder and the scarring. It is also open to regard the scarring as part and parcel of the shoulder injury. (Zaicov & McKenna v Jones at [25]) In this case, I consider it…

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 Corne v. Jansen

Details

AGLC: Corne v Jansen [2008] QDC 262
Case: [2008] QDC 262
Decision Date: 14 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Corne v. Jansen involved a dispute over the assessment of compensation for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Ms Corne, due to an offence committed by the defendant, Mr Jansen. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. Ms Corne claimed compensation for a surgical scar she received following an assault by Mr Jansen, which she argued was a result of the crime for which he was convicted. Additionally, she sought compensation for psychological harm, which she alleged was exacerbated by the scar.

The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of compensation, taking into account the surgical scar and the contribution of other factors to Ms Corne’s psychological condition. The legal issues centred on the extent to which the scar contributed to her psychological harm, and how this should be factored into the compensation assessment. The court also needed to consider the other contributing factors to Ms Corne’s psychological condition, such as pre-existing conditions and any other incidents that may have influenced her mental health.

In reaching its decision, the court evaluated the evidence presented regarding the scar’s impact on Ms Corne’s psychological state, as well as the other factors contributing to her condition. It was determined that the scar played a significant role in her psychological harm. However, the court also recognised that other factors, including pre-existing conditions, contributed to her overall psychological state. After considering all the evidence, the court concluded that the appropriate compensation was $21,000.

The final orders of the court mandated that Mr Jansen pay Ms Corne $21,000 by way of compensation for the injuries she sustained as a result of the offence for which he was convicted.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order Mr Jansen pay Ms Corne $21,000 by way of compensation for injuries she sustained as a result of the offence for which Mr Jansen was convicted on 7 December 2005.

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:	Corne v Jansen [2008] QDC 262
PARTIES:	LYNETTE JUNE CORNE (Applicant) v ANTONIOUS FRANKLIN JANSEN (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	523 of 2008
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Southport
DELIVERED ON:	14 November 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	10 November 2008
JUDGE:	Kingham DCJ
ORDER:	I order Mr Jansen pay Ms Corne $21,000 by way of compensation for injuries she sustained as a result of the offence for which Mr Jansen was convicted on 7 December 2005.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – assessment of compensation – surgical scar – other contributions to psychological condition Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 25(7) R v Pangilinan; Ex parte Owens [2001] QSC 391 – followed Say v Az; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462 - applied Zaicov & McKenna v Jones [2001] QCA 442 - applied
COUNSEL:	N/A
SOLICITORS:	O’Keefe Mahoney Bennett for the applicant