Day v Johnson - [2004] QDC 467

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Day v Johnson & Ors [2004] QDC 467

PARTIES:

RICHARD CLIFFORD DAY
Applicant
v
DAVID RAYMOND JOHNSON
First Respondent
PAUL ROBERT MISALE
Second Respondent
DAVID SEAN ROULSTON
Third Respondent
SHARON JENNIFER TAYLOR
Fourth Respondent

FILE NO/S:

41 of 2004

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

15 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2004

JUDGE:

Richards DCJ

ORDER:

The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $27,000 by way of compensation as follows:

1.David Sean Roulston and Sharon Jennifer Taylor pay compensation in the sum of $27,000 to the applicant for which they jointly and severally are liable to the applicant.

2.Paul Robert Misale pay compensation in the sum of $5,400 to the applicant which is 20% of the above figure of $27,000 for which he is jointly and severally liable to the applicant with the said Roulston, Taylor and Johnson in respect of that amount of $5,400.

3.David Raymond Johnson pay compensation in the sum of $2,700 to the applicant which is 10% of the above figure of $27,000 for which he is jointly and severally liable to the applicant with the said Misale, Roulston and Taylor in respect of that amount of $2,700.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation – apportionment between the respondents.

COUNSEL:

A Stobie for the applicant

No appearance for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

McNamara & Associates for the applicant
No appearance for the Respondents.

The applicant in this case was acquainted with all of the respondents who lived in his local neighbourhood. On 1 February 2002 he was invited to Taylor’s home for a social visit. Residing at the house at that stage were Driessens, Roulston and Taylor.

When Day arrived at the house Taylor, Driessens, Roulston and Misale were all present. Taylor accused him of having indecently dealt with her daughter. He denied the allegation and Driessens, Taylor’s partner, hit him with a closed fist to the right side of the face. The blow split his right eyebrow. He was then punched again in a similar way.

Taylor began hitting him with a closed fist all over his face and Roulston punched him on the left side of the face. Roulston then picked up a horse bit and hit him across the legs and left foot causing severe pain.

Johnson then arrived and Day attempted to escape the house. He was wrestled to the ground and then tied up and taken to a car. Repeated threats were made to him to the effect that he would be taken away and killed. Ultimately he was driven away and then dropped by the side of the road.

On 17 October 2002 Taylor, Roulston and Misale pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm in company and Taylor, Roulston, Misale and Johnson pleaded guilty to deprivation of liberty.

The applicant suffered black eyes, swelling over his left cheek and his left foot was swollen, fractured jaw and a fractured cheek. Surgical correction of…

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 Day v Johnson

Details

AGLC: Day v Johnson [2004] QDC 467
Case: [2004] QDC 467
Decision Date: 15 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Day v Johnson involved the applicant seeking criminal injury compensation from four respondents. The compensation was due to an incident where the applicant was assaulted and injured, and the respondents were subsequently convicted of their respective roles in the assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issues the court had to address were the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant and the apportionment of that compensation among the respondents.

The court considered the severity of the assault, the roles each respondent played in the incident, and the financial implications of the injuries sustained by the applicant. The applicant argued for a total compensation of $27,000, with each respondent contributing to this amount based on their culpability. The respondents contested the total amount and the apportionment, arguing that their contributions should reflect their level of involvement. The court carefully reviewed evidence regarding the extent of the injuries, the nature of each respondent's involvement, and the statutory framework governing criminal injury compensation.

In its decision, the court awarded the applicant $27,000 in total compensation. It found that David Sean Roulston and Sharon Jennifer Taylor were jointly and severally liable for the full amount, reflecting their significant roles in the assault. Paul Robert Misale was held jointly and severally liable for 20% of the total compensation, equating to $5,400, due to his lesser but still substantial involvement. David Raymond Johnson was found jointly and severally liable for 10% of the total compensation, amounting to $2,700, reflecting his minimal role in the incident. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of each respondent's culpability and the need for the compensation to fairly reflect the harm caused and the respective responsibilities of each respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $27,000 by way of compensation as follows:

1.David Sean Roulston and Sharon Jennifer Taylor pay compensation in the sum of $27,000 to the applicant for which they jointly and severally are liable to the applicant.

2.Paul Robert Misale pay compensation in the sum of $5,400 to the applicant which is 20% of the above figure of $27,000 for which he is jointly and severally liable to the applicant with the said Roulston, Taylor and Johnson in respect of that amount of $5,400.

3.David Raymond Johnson pay compensation in the sum of $2,700 to the applicant which is 10% of the above figure of $27,000 for which he is jointly and severally liable to the applicant with the said Misale, Roulston and Taylor in respect of that amount of $2,700.

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:	Day v Johnson & Ors [2004] QDC 467
PARTIES:	RICHARD CLIFFORD DAY Applicant v DAVID RAYMOND JOHNSON First Respondent PAUL ROBERT MISALE Second Respondent DAVID SEAN ROULSTON Third Respondent SHARON JENNIFER TAYLOR Fourth Respondent
FILE NO/S:	41 of 2004
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	15 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	15 October 2004
JUDGE:	Richards DCJ
ORDER:	The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $27,000 by way of compensation as follows: 1.David Sean Roulston and Sharon Jennifer Taylor pay compensation in the sum of $27,000 to the applicant for which they jointly and severally are liable to the applicant. 2.Paul Robert Misale pay compensation in the sum of $5,400 to the applicant which is 20% of the above figure of $27,000 for which he is jointly and severally liable to the applicant with the said Roulston, Taylor and Johnson in respect of that amount of $5,400. 3.David Raymond Johnson pay compensation in the sum of $2,700 to the applicant which is 10% of the above figure of $27,000 for which he is jointly and severally liable to the applicant with the said Misale, Roulston and Taylor in respect of that amount of $2,700.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – apportionment between the respondents.
COUNSEL:	A Stobie for the applicant No appearance for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	McNamara & Associates for the applicant No appearance for the Respondents.