Facer v Bennett

[2001] QCA 395

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Facer v Bennett & Anor [2001] QCA 395

PARTIES:

BARRY PAUL FACER

(Applicant/Respondent)

v
GEORGE EDWARD BENNETT AND
(First Respondent/Applicant)
LINDSAY JAMES BENNETT
(Second Respondent/Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2916 of 2001
DC No 2483 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2001

JUDGES:

Davies and Thomas JJA, Philippides J.
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

1.   That leave to appeal is refused;

2.   That the application be dismissed with no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – order for compensation under Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 –rejection of defence of self defence by jury – whether applicants entitled to adduce evidence showing contribution – whether inconsistent with jury’s verdict

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 25(7)
District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 118

COUNSEL: 

SOLICITORS:

The applicants appeared on their own behalf
BA Fielding (Sol) for the respondent

The applicants appeared on their own behalf

Anderssen & Company for the respondent

1. DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philippides J and with the orders she proposes.

1. THOMAS JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philippides J and with the orders she proposes.

1. PHILIPPIDES J: This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 118 District Court Act 1967 (Qld) from a decision of a District Court Judge ordering the applicants to pay the respondent, Mr Facer, $18,750 by way of criminal compensation for injuries suffered by the respondent on 26 June 1997 in respect of which the applicants were each convicted on 20 April 1998 of the offence of grievous bodily harm.

1. Leave to appeal is sought on the following specified grounds; namely that the learned trial judge:

“(a)…erred in law and failed to give fair conduct prior to the proceedings on the fifth day of March 2001;

(b)…erred in law and personally did not allow fair conduct during the proceedings on the fifth day of March 2001;

(c)… failed to abide by previous court orders made by him via telephone link ups during the proceedings on the fifth day of March 2001; and

(d)… erred in law by ordering that the accused pay to the plaintiff the sum of $18,750.00 in way of compensation.”

1. The Notice of Appeal sets out the following grounds of appeal; namely that the learned trial judge:

“(a)... erred in law and failed to give fair conduct prior to the proceedings on the fifth day of March 2001;

(b)... erred in law and he personally did not allow fair conduct during the proceedings on the fifth day of March 2001;

(c)… failed to abide by previous court orders made by him via telephone link ups;

(d)… interrupted at all times, questions put to the claimant while he was being cross examined;