Fitzpatrick v The Queen

Case [2004] WASCA 99

FITZPATRICK -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 99



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2004] WASCA 99
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:66/200318 FEBRUARY 2004
Coram:MALCOLM CJ
MILLER J
EM HEENAN J		20/05/04
18Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:JAMES STUART FITZPATRICK
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure
Compensation
Wilful or unlawful destruction of a Ford motor vehicle by fire
Order for compensation to be paid for the destroyed motor vehicle, loss of a second vehicle and damage to the victim's house and contents
Whether s 117 of the Sentencing Act (1995) (WA) applies to consequential damage to other property damaged as a result of the commission of the offence

Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), ss 443, 444
Criminal Code (T)
Sentencing Act (1995) (WA), ss 117, 119A

Case References:
Gardenal-Williams v The Queen (1989) Tas R 62
Hookham v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 450
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Koppen and Horrocks v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8148; 1 March 1990
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Pace v "H" (A Child) (1994) 12 WAR 35
R v "S" (A Child), unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 920189; 3 April 1992
R v Bowen (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 82
R v Field [1982] 1 NSWLR 488
R v Fraser [1975] 2 NSWLR 521
R v Galasso (1981) 4 A Crim R 454
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Hogson (1985) Tas R 75
R v Horsham Justices; Ex parte Richards [1985] 1 WLR 986
R v James (1981) 27 SASR 348
R v Little [1957] VR 602
R v McDonald [1979] 1 NSWLR 451
Scott v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7607; 14 April 1989
Vlahov v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1993) 26 ATR 49
Ryan v Burke, unreported; SCt of WA (Templeman J); Library No 960749; 17 December 1996

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : FITZPATRICK -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 99 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
    MILLER J
    EM HEENAN J
HEARD : 18 FEBRUARY 2004 DELIVERED : 20 MAY 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 66 of 2003 BETWEEN : JAMES STUART FITZPATRICK
    Applicant

    AND

    THE QUEEN
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AT ROCKINGHAM

Coram : FRENCH DCJ

File Number : IND 291 of 2003



Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Compensation - Wilful or unlawful destruction of a Ford motor vehicle by fire - Order for compensation to be paid for the




(Page 2)

destroyed motor vehicle, loss of a second vehicle and damage to the victim's house and contents - Whether s 117 of the Sentencing Act (1995) (WA) applies to consequential damage to other property damaged as a result of the commission of the offence


Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), ss…

Continue reading Fitzpatrick v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fitzpatrick v The Queen [2004] WASCA 99
Case
[2004] WASCA 99
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fitzpatrick v The Queen involved the appellant, who had been found guilty of wilfully and unlawfully destroying a Ford motor vehicle by fire. The destruction of the vehicle resulted in damage to the victim's house and loss of a second vehicle. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, and the victim applied for compensation under section 117 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA). The application for compensation sought to cover the destroyed motor vehicle, the loss of the second vehicle, and the damage to the victim's house and contents. The court had to determine whether section 117 of the Sentencing Act applied to the consequential damage to the other property resulting from the commission of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the consequential damage to the other property, which was not the direct object of the offence, could be compensated under section 117 of the Sentencing Act. The appellant argued that compensation should be limited to the direct object of the offence, while the victim argued that the consequential damage was an integral part of the harm caused by the offence. The court considered the purpose of the compensation provision and the scope of the provision in relation to the consequential damage.

The court held that section 117 of the Sentencing Act was intended to provide compensation for the loss or damage caused directly by the commission of the offence. The court found that the consequential damage to the other property, while related to the offence, was not the direct object of the offence. As such, the court dismissed the application for compensation for the consequential damage. The court acknowledged the hardship caused to the victim but concluded that the compensation provision did not extend to the consequential damage.

In conclusion, the application for compensation was dismissed. The court held that the compensation provision under section 117 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) was limited to the direct object of the offence, which in this case was the Ford motor vehicle destroyed by fire. The court found that the consequential damage to the other property, including the loss of the second vehicle and damage to the victim's house and contents, was not compensable under the provision. The court's decision highlights the importance of understanding the scope of the compensation provision and its application to the specific facts of each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.