DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Ferguson v Watterson [2008] QDC 224
PARTIES:
DENNIS RAYMOND FERGUSON
(applicant)
v
NOEL BOYD WATTERSON
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
40 of 2008
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:
19 September 2008
DELIVERED AT:
Ipswich
HEARING DATE:
2 September 2008
JUDGE:
Richards DCJ
ORDER:
The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $2,250 by way of compensation
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal compensation – where other factors have contributed in a significant way to an injury
COUNSEL:
Mr P E Smith for applicant
Mr P Boustead for Crown Law
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Fisher Dore for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
The applicant is a sixty year old man who has previously been convicted of sexual offences against young children. He was released from prison in New South Wales on 15 December 2004 and returned to Queensland in December 2004 initially living in the Brisbane area with friends. From December 2004 to January 2005 he moved to Ipswich and was living with a friend in temporary accommodation.
During the days leading up to this offence he and his friends had been subjected to an extreme amount of harassment from the media who had in turn engendered public support to hound the applicant out of town. On 1 February 2005 he was helping friends move to rental accommodation in Murgon. He was the subject of further abuse on that day in Murgon and was told by the police he would be safer if he left and he returned to Ipswich. When they arrived back at Ipswich there were members of the media and a crowd of people outside the premises waiting for them. The applicant could not see what was going on as he was under a blanket in the rear of the vehicle but he was told that Mr Watterson was in the crowd and that Watterson did not like him.
Because of the hostility of the crowd outside the house they drove immediately to the Yamanto Police Station. When they arrived the media was there as well. His friends went into the police station while he stayed under the blanket in the car. They requested assistance from the police and then they went back to the Ipswich address driving around to the back of the premises. The media and the respondent were still there. The car was stopped and as he lay under the blanket he heard many people yelling things like, “Get out you filthy kid fucker”, “You’re dead”, “We don’t want you here.” He became scared that if he got out of the car people would hurt him. He heard the back door of the car being opened by the applicant and he heard the applicant and others yell at him, “Get out of here!”.
Things quietened down a bit and he eventually left the car and entered the house. As he went to the house he heard more abuse and people…
Continue reading Ferguson v. Watterson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ferguson v Watterson [2008] QDC 224
- Case
- [2008] QDC 224
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant. The court needed to consider whether the injuries were solely due to the respondent's actions or whether other factors had significantly contributed to the injuries. The court also had to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties regarding the severity of the injuries and the impact on the applicant's life.
The court held that the respondent was liable for the injuries but found that other factors had contributed significantly to the extent of the injuries. It was determined that the applicant's pre-existing medical conditions and lifestyle choices had exacerbated the injuries. The court took these factors into account when assessing the quantum of compensation. After carefully considering the evidence, the court awarded the applicant $2,250 in compensation. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the respondent's liability with the contributory factors when determining the appropriate compensation amount.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $2,250 by way of compensation
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.