Eldridge

Eldridge [2001] NTSC 51
PARTY:IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ANNETTE ELDRIDGE FOR CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:17 of 2001 (20101147)
DELIVERED:  28 June 2001
HEARING DATES:  21 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal injuries compensation – assessment of – Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Ordinance 1975, s 3.
S v Turner (1979) 1 NTR 17, considered
Davey v Haidukewicz (1980) 4 NTR 40, considered

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:D Howard
Solicitors:
Applicant:Hunt and Hunt
Judgment category classification:        B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0116
Number of pages:  3

Mar0116
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Eldridge [2001] NTSC 51
No.17 of 2001 (20101147)

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ANNETTE ELDRIDGE FOR CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 28 June 2001)

This is an application for compensation under provisions of the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Ordinance 1975. The Ordinance, which remains in force, provides that where a person is convicted of an offence which has resulted in injury to an aggrieved person, the court in which the first named person is convicted may, upon the occasion of a conviction or thereafter, order that a sum not exceeding $4000 be paid to the aggrieved person out of the property or earnings of the person convicted, by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by reason of the offence.

Petar Yovanovic, the father of the applicant, as found guilty and convicted in this Court on 11 October 1999 for that between 1 January 1981 and 6 September 1981 at Darwin he committed fornication with his daughter, the applicant (contrary to s 3 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and Ordinance). The applicant was at the time of the offence aged about 17 and the act of fornication alleged or admitted was that during the period in question Mr Yovanovic had sexual intercourse with the applicant in a motel room on one occasion.
An aggrieved person is defined in s 2 in the Ordinance as being a person who has suffered injury as a result of a criminal offence. “Injury” means bodily harm and includes pregnancy, mental shock and nervous shock. During submissions on sentence the Crown informed the Court that the applicant wished the Court to know that she was upset and confused by the incident. Other material placed before the Court on this application satisfies me that the injury suffered by the applicant was such as to justify an award of $4000 and Petar Yovanovic is ordered to pay to her out of his property of earnings by way of compensation that sum for the injuries sustained by reason of the offence.
In determining whether or not to make the order and fixing the amount, the Court has had regard to the fact of the relationship between Mr Yovanovic and the applicant, as well as the nature of the offence and its effect upon the applicant.
In considering this matter I have paid regard to the guidance provided by Muirhead J in S v Turner (1979) 1 NTR 17, but taking into account that that was a case concerned with criminal compensation for the offence of rape. I have also paid regard to the judgment of Forster CJ in Davey v Haidukewicz (1980) 4 NTR 40.

___________________________

In the matter of the application for criminal injuries compensation by a person identified as 'Eldridge', the case came before the relevant tribunal. The applicant, Eldridge, sought compensation for injuries sustained during a criminal incident, claiming that the harm suffered was a direct consequence of the unlawful act. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the injuries met the criteria set forth under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Ordinance 1975, specifically section 3, which outlines the eligibility for compensation.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the injuries claimed by Eldridge were indeed attributable to a criminal act, as required by the legislation. This involved a careful examination of the evidence presented regarding the nature and cause of the injuries, as well as the circumstances surrounding the incident. The tribunal had to assess whether the injuries met the threshold for being considered "incurred in the course of a criminal act" as defined by the statute.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal closely analysed the evidence and determined that the injuries Eldridge sustained were directly caused by the criminal act in question. The tribunal found that the injuries met the statutory requirements for compensation under section 3 of the Ordinance. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favour of the applicant, concluding that the injuries were sufficiently linked to the criminal incident to warrant compensation. The tribunal's decision was based on a detailed assessment of the facts and a thorough application of the relevant legal provisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established