Davis v. Wildey & Clarke - [2009] QDC 79

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davis v Wildey & Clarke [2009] QDC 79

PARTIES:

SHANNON CHRISTOPHER DAVIS

(Applicant)

v

DREW WILLIAM WILDEY

(First Respondent)

and

DAVID OLIVER CLARKE

(Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

154 of 2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2009

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondents Drew William Wildey and David Oliver Clarke pay the applicant Shannon Christopher Davis the sum of $13, 500.00.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION –assault occasioning bodily harm in company – bruising and lacerations – facial fracture – mental or nervous shock

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 ss 22(4), 24, 25, 26, 30(2)

CASES:

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436

Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337

Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148

COUNSEL:

Ms A Campbell (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Campbell + White Lawyers for the applicant

No appearance for the respondents

ctionIntrodu

The applicant Shannon Christopher Davis seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him in an incident which occurred at Browns Plains on 3 January 2005. The first respondent, Drew William Wildey, was sentenced by Judge Samios in the District Court, Brisbane, on 18 November 2005 to a sentence (relevantly in respect of this application) of three years imprisonment suspended after serving twelve months, with an operational period of three years. The second respondent, David Oliver Clarke, was sentenced by Judge Griffin in the Beenleigh District Court on 1 May 2007 to a sentence (relevantly in respect of this application) of three years imprisonment suspended after twelve months, with an operational period of three years.

Facts

The first and second respondents were involved in a series of offences in respect of four persons who lived together in a house at Browns Plains. On 3 January 2005, the first and second respondents obtained entry to the residence at Browns Plains by a ruse while the four residents were at home watching TV around midday. After an initial assault of one of the residents, Scott Waddell, the first respondent turned to the applicant and said, “You are next”. The first respondent then chased the applicant down the hall. The applicant was punched in the back of the head by the first respondent while he was being chased. The applicant ran into a bedroom and tried to shut the door. The first respondent forced the door open, pushing the applicant to the floor. The first respondent started punching the applicant in the face, using both of his fists, causing the applicant’s nose to bleed. The first respondent then stomped on the applicant’s head, face and body about 10 to 15 times.

The applicant tried to punch the first respondent in the groin region in retaliation and the first respondent then kicked the applicant in the nose. At this point the second respondent came into the…

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 Davis v. Wildey & Clarke

Details

AGLC: Davis v Wildey and Clarke [2009] QDC 79
Case: [2009] QDC 79
Decision Date: 20 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Shannon Christopher Davis, the applicant, and Drew William Wildey and David Oliver Clarke, the respondents, the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant sought compensation for injuries sustained during an assault that occurred in the presence of others. The injuries included bruising, lacerations, a facial fracture, and mental or nervous shock. The respondents were convicted of the assault and the applicant applied for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to compensation under the Act for the injuries suffered. The court needed to determine if the injuries met the criteria for compensation as outlined in the Act, particularly whether they were caused by the unlawful act of another person and whether they included bodily harm. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent of the applicant's injuries and their impact on his physical and mental health.

The court found that the applicant's injuries, including the bruising, lacerations, facial fracture, and mental or nervous shock, were directly caused by the respondents' unlawful act. The injuries met the criteria for compensation under the Act as they constituted bodily harm. The court considered the evidence presented regarding the severity and impact of the injuries on the applicant's physical and mental health. It concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained.

The court ordered that the respondents Drew William Wildey and David Oliver Clarke pay the applicant Shannon Christopher Davis the sum of $13,500.00 as compensation for the injuries suffered. The compensation amount reflected the nature and extent of the injuries and their impact on the applicant's health and wellbeing. The court's decision was based on the evidence and the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondents Drew William Wildey and David Oliver Clarke pay the applicant Shannon Christopher Davis the sum of $13, 500.00.

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:	Davis v Wildey & Clarke [2009] QDC 79
PARTIES:	SHANNON CHRISTOPHER DAVIS (Applicant) v DREW WILLIAM WILDEY (First Respondent) and DAVID OLIVER CLARKE (Second Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	154 of 2008
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	20 March 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	30 January 2009
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondents Drew William Wildey and David Oliver Clarke pay the applicant Shannon Christopher Davis the sum of $13, 500.00.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION –assault occasioning bodily harm in company – bruising and lacerations – facial fracture – mental or nervous shock
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 ss 22(4), 24, 25, 26, 30(2)
CASES:	R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436 Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337 Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148
COUNSEL:	Ms A Campbell (solicitor) for the applicant No appearance for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Campbell + White Lawyers for the applicant No appearance for the respondents