CRJ v JGD - [2010] QDC 341

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CRJ v JGD [2010] QDC 341

PARTIES:

GEFN as litigation guardian for

CRJ

(Applicant)

v

JGD

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

168/10

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2010

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent, JGD pays to GEFN as litigation guardian for the applicant CRJ the sum of $18,750.00 for injury suffered by way of adverse impacts caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 7 May 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION - indecent treatment of a child under 12 – where applicant sustained no physical injuries – where applicant suffered “adverse impacts of a sexual offence” under s 1(A)(2) of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 - where applicant’s behaviour did not contribute to the adverse impacts.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 20, 24, 25(7), 31

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 s 1(A)(2)

Ferguson v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320

LMW v Nicholls (2004) QDC 118

Re JI v AV [2001] QCA 510

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149

COUNSEL:

Ms. K. Worsnop for the Applicant

No appearance by or on behalf of Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Delaney & Delaney Solicitors for the Applicant

Introduction:

GEFN (as litigation guardian for CRJ (“the applicant”)) claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act’) for alleged injury she sustained arising out of the criminal conduct of JGD (“the respondent”) who was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 7 May 2009 of three offences with respect to the applicant, of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years of age.

Although the evidence before the court does not establish that the applicant has suffered a “post traumatic stress disorder” the application for compensation is based upon the applicant having suffered an “injury” within the meaning of the Act because of her having suffered a number of “adverse impacts” as defined under s 1A(2) of the Regulations to the Act which have arisen out of the sexual offences committed upon her by the respondent.

The application for compensation is supported by the following material:

a) The affidavit with exhibits of Katie Louise Worsnop, Solicitor, sworn and filed in this court on 22 June 2010;

b) The affidavit with exhibits of GEFN (litigation guardian of the applicant), sworn 28 June 2010 and filed in this court on 29 June 2010;

c) The affidavit of Dr Barbara McGuire, Psychiatrist, sworn 28 June 2010 and filed in this court on 29 June 2010;

d) The further affidavit with exhibits of Katie Louise Worsnop, Solicitor, sworn and filed by leave in this court on 14 July 2010;

e) The affidavit of service of Paul Buxton sworn 12 May 2010 and filed in this court on 19 January 2010;

The respondent was served personally with the application and supporting documents and indicated to the applicant’s…

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 CRJ v JGD

Details

AGLC: CRJ v JGD [2010] QDC 341
Case: [2010] QDC 341
Decision Date: 3 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, CRJ, sought compensation from the respondent, JGD, under the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 for the adverse impacts suffered as a result of the respondent's conviction for indecent treatment of a child under 12. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether CRJ was entitled to compensation for the adverse impacts of a sexual offence, despite sustaining no physical injuries. The tribunal had to determine whether CRJ's adverse impacts were caused by the offence and whether CRJ's behaviour contributed to the adverse impacts.

The tribunal found that CRJ had indeed suffered adverse impacts as a result of the offence, as defined under s 1(A)(2) of the regulation. The tribunal acknowledged that CRJ's adverse impacts were a direct result of the respondent's actions and that CRJ's behaviour did not contribute to the adverse impacts. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that CRJ was entitled to compensation for the adverse impacts suffered. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay CRJ, through their litigation guardian GEFN, the sum of $18,750.00 for the injury suffered.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent, JGD pays to GEFN as litigation guardian for the applicant CRJ the sum of $18,750.00 for injury suffered by way of adverse impacts caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 7 May 2009.

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:	CRJ v JGD [2010] QDC 341
PARTIES:	GEFN as litigation guardian for CRJ (Applicant) v JGD (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	168/10
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	3 September 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2010
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent, JGD pays to GEFN as litigation guardian for the applicant CRJ the sum of $18,750.00 for injury suffered by way of adverse impacts caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 7 May 2009.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION - indecent treatment of a child under 12 – where applicant sustained no physical injuries – where applicant suffered “adverse impacts of a sexual offence” under s 1(A)(2) of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 - where applicant’s behaviour did not contribute to the adverse impacts. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 20, 24, 25(7), 31 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 s 1(A)(2) Ferguson v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320 LMW v Nicholls (2004) QDC 118 Re JI v AV [2001] QCA 510 RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149
COUNSEL:	Ms. K. Worsnop for the Applicant No appearance by or on behalf of Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Delaney & Delaney Solicitors for the Applicant