Cox v Goodwin - [2009] QDC 348

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cox v Goodwin [2009] QDC 348

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JAMES COX

(Applicant)

v

KERRIE ANN GOODWIN

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D363/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Southport

DELIVERED ON:

12 November 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

2 November 2009

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $2700 by way of compensation pursuant to section 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of unlawful wounding which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Southport on 21 April 2008

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – UNLAWFUL WOUNDING – physical injuries and mental or nervous shock – whether behaviour of the applicant directly or indirectly contributed to his injuries

COUNSEL:

J C Hall for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McCowans solicitors for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

Introduction

The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to s.24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for physical and emotional injuries caused by an attack by the respondent on 30 May 2002.

On 21 April 2008 in the District Court at Southport the respondent pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding. The respondent pleaded to the charge on the morning of the first day of trial after an eye witness came forward and made a statement that day.

She was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of 18 months. She had served 86 days in pre-sentence custody.

On 21 July 2009 the applicant’s solicitor contacted the respondent’s mother to obtain address for service on the respondent. Sealed copies of the service documents were provided to a process server to be served on the respondent at her last known address in Alice Springs. The process server attempted service on the respondent on 29 July 2009. He spoke to the respondent’s mother. The process server was told to attend the next morning. He did so and was advised by the respondent’s mother that the respondent was not contactable. The process server left a sealed envelope with the material enclosed attached to the front door of the house. On 30 July 2009 the process server again attended the house. The envelope had been removed and there was no sign of the respondent. The process server returned to the house another 5 times but the respondent was not there.

On 15 September 2009 the District Court at Southport ordered that a notice be placed in an Alice Springs newspaper addressed to the attention of the respondent stating the time, date, and place of hearing.

An advertisement was placed in the Centralian Advocate on 25 September 2009 notifying the respondent of the hearing date.

There was no appearance by or for the respondent at the hearing of the application.

Circumstances of the offence

The statement of the eye witness provided on the morning of the trial was relied upon as the factual…

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 Cox v Goodwin

Details

AGLC: Cox v Goodwin [2009] QDC 348
Case: [2009] QDC 348
Decision Date: 12 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cox v Goodwin involved an application for criminal compensation by the applicant, Cox, against the respondent, Goodwin. Cox sought compensation for physical injuries and mental or nervous shock sustained as a result of an unlawful wounding offence, for which Goodwin had been convicted in the District Court at Southport on 21 April 2008. The application was made pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The central issue before the court was whether Cox's own behaviour directly or indirectly contributed to the injuries he sustained, which would affect his eligibility for compensation.

The court was required to examine the circumstances surrounding the unlawful wounding incident to determine the extent of Cox's contribution, if any, to his injuries. This involved assessing evidence and arguments presented by both parties regarding the events leading to the incident and Cox's actions during the confrontation with Goodwin. The court had to consider whether Cox's actions were merely reactive or whether they played a significant role in exacerbating his injuries.

After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, the court found that Cox's behaviour did not directly or indirectly contribute to the injuries he sustained. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Cox, determining that he was entitled to compensation for the physical injuries and mental or nervous shock resulting from the unlawful wounding. The court ordered Goodwin to pay Cox the sum of $2700 by way of compensation, as provided for under section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $2700 by way of compensation pursuant to section 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of unlawful wounding which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Southport on 21 April 2008

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:	Cox v Goodwin [2009] QDC 348
PARTIES:	MICHAEL JAMES COX (Applicant) v KERRIE ANN GOODWIN (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D363/09
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Southport
DELIVERED ON:	12 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	2 November 2009
JUDGE:	Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $2700 by way of compensation pursuant to section 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of unlawful wounding which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Southport on 21 April 2008
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – UNLAWFUL WOUNDING – physical injuries and mental or nervous shock – whether behaviour of the applicant directly or indirectly contributed to his injuries
COUNSEL:	J C Hall for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McCowans solicitors for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent