Devaraj (Denash) v. Mathutanayagam - [2007] QDC 117

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Devaraj v Mathutanayagam [2007] QDC 117

PARTIES:

ARUNA DEVARAJ AS LITIGATION GUARDIAN FOR DENASH ANGELO DEVARAJ

(Applicant)

V

SURENDARAN MATHUTANAYAGAM

(AKA ISAAC SURENDARAN)

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

262/07

DIVISION:

Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 May 2007

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $5,250.00 by way of compensation for injury caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where applicant assaulted – where applicant suffered bruising and lacerations – where applicant “suffered a significant depressive episode” but “no current psychiatric diagnosis”.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 31.

Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.

COUNSEL:

Mr C. Reid for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Gabriel Ruddy & Garrett for the applicant.

Introduction:

The applicant, Denash Angelo Devaraj by his litigation guardian Aruna Devaraj, claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for bodily injury he sustained arising out of the criminal conduct of the respondent, Surendaran Mathutanayagam, who was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004 of a number of offences including the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm of the applicant “… between 30 September 1999 and 20 January 2000 at Toowoomba in the State of Queensland.”[1]
[1] Count 3 of the indictment.

In accordance with the order for substituted service made by this court[2] on 30 March 2007, the applicant’s solicitors caused an advertisement to appear in the Public Notices section of The Australian newspaper on 19 April 2007 to effect service on the respondent of the material before the court. Despite that publication there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent at the hearing.
[2] See affidavit of Christopher Michael O’Connor filed by leave on 21 May 2007.

The application for compensation is made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:-

(a) the affidavit with exhibits of the applicant sworn 31 January 2007 and filed in this court on 1 February;

(b) the affidavit with exhibit of Dr Barbara McGuire, Psychiatrist, sworn 22 January 2007 and filed in this court on 29 January 2007;

(c) the affidavit with exhibit of Dr Greg Apel, Psychiatrist, sworn 23 January 2007 and filed in this court on 29 January 2007; and

(d) the affidavit of substituted service with exhibit of Christopher Michael O’Connor, Articled Clerk, sworn 21 May 2007 and filed by leave in this court on 21 May 2007.

Facts:

The respondent assaulted the applicant in circumstances set out in the material before the court by pulling and dragging the applicant over uneven and rocky ground causing him to sustain injuries to his legs and otherwise traumatising him.

Physical injuries:

The applicant claims compensation for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Devaraj (Denash) v. Mathutanayagam and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] QDC 117
Decision Date: 25 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Devaraj (Denash) v. Mathutanayagam, the applicant sought compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Scheme for injuries sustained during an assault that resulted in bruising and lacerations. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant's injuries were severe enough to warrant compensation under the scheme, and if so, what amount would be appropriate.

The court considered the applicant's medical reports, which indicated the presence of bruising and lacerations, as well as a significant depressive episode without a current psychiatric diagnosis. The court also examined the nature and severity of the injuries, the impact on the applicant's health, and the circumstances of the assault. The court noted that the applicant's injuries, while not life-threatening, had a significant impact on his physical and mental well-being.

After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, the court determined that the applicant's injuries warranted compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Scheme. The court awarded the applicant the sum of $5,250.00, reflecting the severity and impact of the injuries sustained. The court also noted that the respondent was liable for the compensation as they were convicted of the assault by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004. This decision ensures that the applicant receives appropriate compensation for the harm caused by the respondent's actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $5,250.00 by way of compensation for injury caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004.

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:	Devaraj v Mathutanayagam [2007] QDC 117
PARTIES:	ARUNA DEVARAJ AS LITIGATION GUARDIAN FOR DENASH ANGELO DEVARAJ (Applicant) V SURENDARAN MATHUTANAYAGAM (AKA ISAAC SURENDARAN) (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	262/07
DIVISION:	Civil jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 May 2007
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $5,250.00 by way of compensation for injury caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on 15 June 2004.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where applicant assaulted – where applicant suffered bruising and lacerations – where applicant “suffered a significant depressive episode” but “no current psychiatric diagnosis”. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 31. Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.
COUNSEL:	Mr C. Reid for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Gabriel Ruddy & Garrett for the applicant.