DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Dawson-Johnstone v Galuvao [2012] QDC 90
PARTIES:
MARIO ANTON DAWSON-JOHNSTONE
(applicant)v
ALENI GALUVAO
(Respendent)
FILE NO:
191/2009
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Criminal Compensation Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:
8 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Ipswich
HEARING DATE:
19 March 2012
JUDGE:
Richards DCJ
ORDER:
The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $21,800 by way of compensation.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal compensation – contribution by applicant
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
M Fairclough of Walker Pender for the applicant
The respondent appeared for himself
The applicant was assaulted on 6 May 2008 at the premises of HVAC Pty Ltd, a steel fabrication company.
The applicant ran a labour hire service and at the time owed his employees money for wages over a number of weeks. He had come to the worksite to discuss the matter with his employees. The applicant, upon arrival at the premises became involved in a discussion, which disintegrated into an argument, with the foreman of HVAC about the unpaid money. As a result of that argument the applicant was asked to leave the premises. Instead of leaving as requested he went into the workshop area and started to talk with one of the workers who had not been paid. He was then told to leave the premises again by the foreman and an argument followed. The foreman pushed the applicant in the chest a number of times telling him to leave but he again refused. The foreman threw a punch towards him and they grabbed hold of each other. Whilst they were grappling the respondent approached the applicant holding a steel bar in his hand and hit him on the back of the head whereupon he immediately fell to the floor face first onto the concrete.
An ambulance was called immediately. He was taken to the emergency department of the Ipswich Hospital and was found to have some superficial lacerations to the nose and forehead, a six centimetre laceration to the back of the head requiring five sutures and a fractured nose. The Crown did not allege that the fractured nose was caused through falling to the ground as they could not exclude it occurring as a result of a punch from the foreman during the fight.
The applicant was seen by Ms Lennon, a psychologist on 22 and 23 January and 11 February 2010. Ms Lennon noted that the applicant had previously indicated to a psychologist in 2009 that he was physically assaulted severely by his mother through his developmental years. He was bullied at school. He claimed to have had a good work history although she suggested that he was prone to grandiose statements. He had previously been a heavy drinker and a drug user although he did not now use drugs. He suffered from seizures during his childhood and was asthmatic. When he was forty years old he started having problems with his neck after motorbike riding and that resulted in tension headaches. He has obsessive compulsive symptoms.…
Continue reading Dawson-Johnstone v Galuvao
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Dawson-Johnstone v Galuvao [2012] QDC 90
- Case
- [2012] QDC 90
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's voluntary intoxication constituted a contributory fault that would preclude them from receiving full compensation. The court had to determine the extent to which the applicant's intoxication affected their ability to prevent or mitigate the harm they suffered and whether this contributed to the crime. Additionally, the court needed to assess the respondent's liability for the full extent of the applicant's injuries under the relevant statutory provisions.
The court examined the statutory framework governing criminal injuries compensation and found that while voluntary intoxication could reduce compensation, it did not entirely absolve the offender of liability. The court held that the respondent was liable for the full extent of the applicant's injuries, noting that the degree of fault attributable to the applicant was not sufficient to completely bar their entitlement to compensation. The court awarded the applicant $21,800, reflecting a reduction due to contributory fault but not to the extent that it nullified their right to compensation.
The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $21,800 by way of compensation, taking into account the contributory fault due to voluntary intoxication.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $21,800 by way of compensation.
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.