CRP v Hettrick

[2005] QDC 125

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CRP v Hettrick [2005] QDC 125

PARTIES:

C R P

Applicant

v

JUSTIN MATTHEW HETTRICK

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD578/2005

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 May 2005

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – whether injury caused by “personal offence” – whether offence committed against the person of applicant.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 21.

Bushell v Ryder [2001] QDC 328 – considered.

Ferguson v Kazakoff [2001] 2 Qd R 320 – applied.

R v Moors; ex parte Alex [1994] 2 Qd R 315 - considered.

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant
The respondent did not appear

SOLICITORS:

Woods Prince Lawyers for the applicant
The respondent was not represented.

1. On 7 March 2003 the respondent pleaded guilty before me to the offence of attempting to procure a minor for a child abuse photograph contrary to s 18 of the Classification of Publications Act 1991. What he had done was enter into an agreement, initially oral but subsequently confirmed in writing, with the applicant for the applicant at some future time to pose naked for photographs in some scenic setting. Before that occurred the applicant drew the matter to the attention of his mother, and thereafter it came to the attention of the police. At the time the applicant was 13, and the respondent was 17. The respondent was a school friend of the applicant’s older brother and knew him in that way.

Personal offence

1. The applicant has applied for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) on the basis that he has suffered injuries, namely psychiatric injury and the deemed injury under s 1A of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995, because of the offence of which the respondent was convicted. Whether he is entitled to do so depends on whether that offence was a “personal offence” for the purposes of s 24 of the Act, and whether it was committed “against” the applicant. By s 21, a “personal offence” is “an indictable offence committed against the person of someone.”

1. Mr Hamlyn-Harris who appeared for the applicant submitted that the word “person” in s 21 meant “body.” I agree. To satisfy s 21 there must be an indictable offence, which was an offence which involved the body of the person who goes on to be the applicant, and which was committed “against” his or her body. In my opinion the definition, by referring to an offence “against the person” of the applicant, refers to an offence where the respondent did something to, or did something which was directed against, the body of the applicant. It involves in my opinion the doing or threatening of some act, whether an act of violence against, or a mere touching of, the body of the applicant.

1. The use of the word “against”, and the first part of the definition of “victim” in s 5 of…