DN v AJE - [2008] QDC 77

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

DN v AJE [2008] QDC 77

PARTIES:

D.N THROUGH HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN J.N

Applicant

AND

A. J. E

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD500/08

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2008

JUDGE:

Nase DCJ

ORDER:

1. That A.J.E pay to D.N the sum of $22,500 by way of compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995; and

2. That the moneys be paid to the Public Trustee of Queensland on behalf of the said D.N. The Public Trustee is authorised, in its discretion, to disperse such sums from time to time for the advancement, welfare, education, and maintenance of the said D.N; and

3. The Public Trustee is further authorised to pay to the applicant’s solicitor, out of the said monies, any reasonable legal expenses of and incidental to this application.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION FOR VICTIM – assessment of compensation under Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for serious sexual assaults against a child

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, ss 20, 21, 22, 24

Cases considered

JI v. AV [2001] QCA 510

COUNSEL:

Mr P Saggers for the applicant

No appearance from the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the applicant

Respondent was not represented

On 6 December 2005 the respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court of Brisbane to a series of seven sexual offences committed on a young boy (D.N).[1] He was sentenced to an effective term of five years imprisonment. Under the sentencing orders he will be eligible for post‑prison, community based release after serving one‑third of the term of imprisonment.
[1]On the same date he was sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of 18 months for a separate offence of operating a motor vehicle dangerously, committed with a circumstance of aggravation.

D is the applicant for a compensation order pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. E is the respondent. E has chosen not to appear or to be represented at the hearing of the application. As a consequence the application proceeded in his absence and solely on the materials placed before the court by the applicant.

The offences charged were committed over an 18‑month period when D was aged seven and eight years. E was a friend of D’s father and insinuated his way into the family circle. The most serious of the offences are the charge of rape by digital penetration of the anus, and the charge of attempted rape constituted by an actual attempt to sodomise D. The indecent treatment charges involve acts of fellatio. The single charge of exposing the boy to an indecent act was constituted by exposing him to an act of masturbation.

The series of offences were aggravated by the serious abuse of the friendship the respondent enjoyed with the boy’s parents and by the serious threats to the boy. It is sad that such a young boy was treated so…

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 DN v AJE

Details

AGLC: DN v AJE [2008] QDC 77
Case: [2008] QDC 77
Decision Date: 8 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of DN versus AJE, the Court addressed the matter of compensation to be paid to DN under the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, following serious sexual assaults against a child. DN, the victim, sought compensation for the trauma and suffering endured as a result of the assaults. The defendant, AJE, had been found guilty of the crimes and was now subject to the Court's determination on the amount of compensation to be paid.

The legal issues at the heart of this case involved the interpretation and application of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 to determine the appropriate level of compensation for the victim, DN. The Court had to consider the severity and impact of the crimes, the personal circumstances of the victim, and any other relevant factors that would inform a fair and just assessment of compensation.

The Court, in assessing the appropriate compensation, took into account the grievous nature of the assaults, the long-term psychological effects on DN, and the overall impact on DN's quality of life. The Court noted the statutory guidelines and relevant precedents in determining the sum of $22,500 as a fair compensation for the victim. The decision underscored the importance of providing adequate compensation to victims of serious crimes to aid in their recovery and rehabilitation.

The Court ordered AJE to pay the sum of $22,500 to DN, with the moneys to be held by the Public Trustee of Queensland for DN's benefit. The Trustee was authorised to disburse these funds for DN's advancement, welfare, education, and maintenance, and also to cover any reasonable legal expenses incurred in relation to this application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That A.J.E pay to D.N the sum of $22,500 by way of compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995; and

2. That the moneys be paid to the Public Trustee of Queensland on behalf of the said D.N. The Public Trustee is authorised, in its discretion, to disperse such sums from time to time for the advancement, welfare, education, and maintenance of the said D.N; and

3. The Public Trustee is further authorised to pay to the applicant’s solicitor, out of the said monies, any reasonable legal expenses of and incidental to this application.

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:	DN v AJE [2008] QDC 77
PARTIES:	D.N THROUGH HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN J.N Applicant AND A. J. E Respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD500/08
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 April 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 March 2008
JUDGE:	Nase DCJ
ORDER:	1. That A.J.E pay to D.N the sum of $22,500 by way of compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995; and 2. That the moneys be paid to the Public Trustee of Queensland on behalf of the said D.N. The Public Trustee is authorised, in its discretion, to disperse such sums from time to time for the advancement, welfare, education, and maintenance of the said D.N; and 3. The Public Trustee is further authorised to pay to the applicant’s solicitor, out of the said monies, any reasonable legal expenses of and incidental to this application.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION FOR VICTIM – assessment of compensation under Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for serious sexual assaults against a child Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, ss 20, 21, 22, 24 Cases considered JI v. AV [2001] QCA 510
COUNSEL:	Mr P Saggers for the applicant No appearance from the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the applicant Respondent was not represented