Fisher v Coultis

[2010] QDC 228

[2010] QDC 228

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE MARTIN SC
No 1294 of 2010

GRAHAM ALEXANDER FISHER	Appellant
and
ERROL COULTIS	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 07/05/2010 JUDGMENT

1-1

HIS HONOUR: In this matter the application for extension of

1

time for filing a notice of appeal against sentence resulted
from an invitation made by this Court consequent upon the

findings in the appeal against conviction. The respondent accepts that in light of the findings the penalty ought be considered afresh. In the circumstances, time for the filing	10
of the notice of appeal against sentence beyond the usual period is granted.
Both parties agreed to provide written submissions in lieu of
oral argument. I've had the advantage of reading their	20
respective submissions. The appeal against sentence is rightly confined to the orders for compensation made by the learned Magistrate in favour of the complainants in the common assault offences, Mr Illich and Mr Edser.
30
It seems that the learned Magistrate accepted that as a result
of the whole incident, Mr Illich suffered some minor bruising
and abrasions and soreness and stiffness for some days after
the incident and that in relation to Mr Edser he suffered
soreness and stiffness. Pursuant to section 35 of the	40
Penalties and Sentences Act a Court may order that the
offender "Pay compensation for personal injury suffered by the
person". In my view, bruising and abrasions are personal
injuries and soreness and stiffness are symptoms of personal
injury, namely, damage to muscles and/or joints.	50

Consequently, I accept the argument by Ms Maleckas to the effect that ordering compensation for the complainants was within the discretion of the learned Magistrate. I do not 1-2 JUDGMENT 60

1

accept the submission on behalf of the appellant that the
offences of common assault, the subject of convictions,
occurred before injuries were sustained by Mr Illich and

Mr Edser.

10

However, it seems clear that the learned Magistrate must have
arrived at the amounts of compensation upon a consideration of
the whole physical incident involving Mr Illich and Mr Edser.
For the reasons previously given, confirmation of the

appellant's convictions in relation to the common assault	20
charges is based upon the initial part of the physical incident prior to Mr Brown involving himself in the restraint.
It follows that the amounts of compensation ought be reduced.
Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the appellant violently	30
resisted restraint during the relevant incident and I am
satisfied to the required standard that the relevant incident
contributed to the bruising, abrasions, soreness and stiffness
suffered by Mr Illich and the soreness and stiffness suffered
by Mr Edser.	40
In the circumstances, doing the best I can, I vary the order
for compensation in respect of Mr Illich by substituting $250
for $500 compensation. I vary the order for compensation in
respect of Mr Edser by substituting $100 for $300	50
compensation.

-----

1-3 JUDGMENT 60