Edwards v Tevita

[2005] QSC 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Edwards v Tevita [2005] QSC 021

PARTIES:

DAMIEN JUSTIN EDWARDS
(applicant)
v
ROBERT TEVITA
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 788/05

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 February 2005

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

The respondent is to pay the applicant compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 in the sum of $19,607.50.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant was stabbed in the course of a fight with the respondent – whether the applicant is entitled to an award of criminal compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 – whether the award should be reduced considering the applicant initiated the fight

Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995

Johnson v Bancroft [2004] QCA 253, 30 July 2004, followed

SOLICITORS:

Woods Prince Lawyers for the applicant

No appearance by the respondent

1. On 13 May 2004 the respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to the applicant with intent to cause that harm.  He was sent to prison for eight years.  The applicant now applies for an award of compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (‘the Act’) for the injuries which were inflicted on him by the respondent.

1. The offence was committed just before 1:00 am on 15 December 2002.  The applicant and some friends had been drinking at a number of suburban hotels.  At about midnight he left the Regatta Hotel in Toowong to go home to Oxley by train.  He changed his plans and alighted at Indooroopilly where he knew a 7/11 store would be open.  He knew it served food and he was hungry.  The applicant had consumed a substantial amount of beer during the evening.  It is a fair inference that he was affected by alcohol.  He does not appear to have been drunk.

1. The applicant met some acquaintances at the shop and spoke to them briefly.  He left to find a lavatory.  He walked down a driveway adjacent to the shop which led to a car park.  On his way back he was confronted by the respondent, a young Melanesian man who demanded that the applicant give him his watch.  The applicant refused.  The respondent reacted by punching the applicant to the nose with his right fist.  To prevent a further blow the applicant grappled with the respondent and managed to hold him by a headlock with his left arm so that the respondent’s head was under his left armpit.  The respondent bit him on the left breast and the applicant let him go and ran away. 

1. The applicant hid between some cars.  He realised he was not being chased.  He became angry as he remembered the attempted robbery and he decided to go in search of the respondent and…