Crosbie v Lawrence - [2002] QSC 217

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Crosbie v Lawrence [2002] QSC 217

PARTIES:

STUART ALLEN CROSBIE
(applicant)
v
SHAYNE ALLEN LAWRENCE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S3439 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2002

JUDGE:

Philippides J

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION – where respondent convicted of unlawful wounding – where respondent stabbed applicant – where applicant suffered mental and nervous shock – where applicant’s behaviour contributed to injury

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, s 21, s 24, s 25

Dooley v Ward [2000] QCA 493; [2001] 2 Qd R 436

Jones v Coolwell [2001] QSC 130, 4 May 2001

COUNSEL:

Shane Connor for the applicant

The respondent appeared in person

SOLICITORS:

McAlister & Cartmill for the applicant

The respondent appeared in person

PHILIPPIDES J:

The Application

The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of unlawful wounding committed on or about 6 August 2000 for which the respondent was convicted on 5 December 2001.

Section 24 of the Act provides:

(1) This section applies if someone (the “convicted person”) –
(a) is convicted on indictment of a personal offence; or
(b)is convicted on indictment and a personal offence is taken into account on sentence.

(2)The person against whom the personal offence is committed may apply to the court before which the person is convicted for an order that the convicted person pay compensation to the applicant for the injury suffered by the applicant because of the offence.

(3)The court may make an order (a “compensation order”) for an amount to be paid by the convicted person to the applicant because of the injury.

Section 21 of the Act describes a personal offence as “an indictable offence committed against the person of someone”.

Background Facts

On 5 December 2001, the respondent was convicted by jury and sentenced on one count of unlawful wounding, committed against the applicant on or about 6 August 2000 at Coolum Beach.

The circumstances of the offence were as follows. On 5 August 2000 at about 11:30 pm the respondent was sitting with a group of family and friends at a picnic table in Tickle Park, Coolum Beach. A group of three males, including the applicant, approached the picnic table and a conversation took place involving an accusation directed towards the respondent’s step-brother. There was a verbal altercation between the respondent and the applicant’s group, which ultimately resulted in a fight, which ended when the respondent stabbed the applicant with a flick knife, which the respondent carried in a pouch on his belt.

It was conceded by the applicant at trial that the first punch was thrown by one Colin Hartnell, a member of the applicant’s group, and not the respondent. Thus the respondent was not the initial aggressor. Furthermore, before the stabbing,…

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 Crosbie v Lawrence

Details

AGLC: Crosbie v Lawrence [2002] QSC 217
Case: [2002] QSC 217
Decision Date: 5 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application for compensation by the applicant, Crosbie, against the respondent, Lawrence, following a stabbing incident. The applicant had suffered both physical and psychological harm as a result of the attack, which was carried out by the respondent, who was subsequently convicted of unlawful wounding. The applicant sought compensation for the injuries sustained, arguing that the respondent’s actions were the sole cause of the harm. The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to compensation and, if so, the appropriate amount.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant’s own conduct contributed to the extent of the injuries sustained, and if so, how this would impact the entitlement to compensation. The court had to consider the principles of contributory negligence and the relevant statutory provisions governing compensation claims. It was necessary to assess the degree to which the applicant's actions, if any, contributed to the harm, and to what extent the respondent's liability should be reduced accordingly. Additionally, the court had to balance the applicant's entitlement to compensation against the statutory limits on such claims.

The court found that the applicant's behaviour did contribute to the extent of the injuries suffered. While the respondent’s actions were the primary cause of the harm, the court determined that the applicant's conduct, which involved engaging in a physical altercation, played a role in the severity of the injuries. As a result, the court reduced the respondent's liability for compensation by a percentage that reflected the applicant’s contributory fault. The court awarded the applicant a reduced amount of compensation, taking into account both the statutory limits and the degree of contributory negligence. The final order of the court was for the respondent to pay the reduced compensation amount to the applicant, reflecting the court's determination of the respective liabilities of both parties.

Orders