Fairhead v Quartermaine

In the case of Fairhead v Quartermaine, the two appellants were convicted of common assault against the respondent. The dispute revolves around the assessment of criminal injuries compensation payable by the appellants individually, given their involvement in the attack. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal from the appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which upheld the primary judge's assessment of the compensation payable.

The legal issues in this case primarily concern the extent to which each appellant's actions contributed to the respondent's injuries and how this contribution should be quantified for the purpose of determining the individual compensation payable by each appellant. The appellants argued that the primary judge erred in his assessment by not sufficiently considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the attack, including the role of other assailants, and by not apportioning the compensation payable more equitably between the appellants.

The court examined the principles of criminal injuries compensation and the statutory framework governing such compensation in South Australia. It held that the primary judge's assessment was not erroneous, as it was based on a detailed consideration of the appellants' individual contributions to the respondent's injuries. The court found that the primary judge appropriately weighed the evidence and made findings that were open on the material before him. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the compensation payable by each appellant as determined by the primary judge was upheld.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the compensation payable by each appellant as determined by the primary judge.