FJN v BMA

Case [2010] QDC 385


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

FJN v BMA  [2010] QDC 385

PARTIES:

FJN

Applicant

V

BMA

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

4/2010

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

1 October, 2010

DELIVERED AT:

District Court, Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

31 August 2010

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent, BMA, pay the applicant, FJN, the sum of $22,500

CATCHWORDS:

Application – criminal compensation - sexual assault – mental or nervous shock – adverse impacts.

LEGISLATION:

Penalties and Sentences Act (Qld) s. 43B, s. 43C.
Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) (1995).
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation (Qld) 1995 s.1A, s. 25(7).
Victims of Crime Assistance Act (Qld) (2009) s.154, s. 155.

CASES:

Kennedy v Faafeu [2010] QDC 21
JMR obo SRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147
SAY v AZ;Ex-parte Attorney General [2006] QCA 462
JI v AV [2002] 2 Qd R 367

COUNSEL:

Ms Y Cherikova of Counsel for the applicant

No appearance on behalf of the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Campbell & White Lawyers for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

ntroductionI

  1. The respondent, BMA, pleaded guilty before me in the Beenleigh District Court on 5 May 2009 to two counts of sexual assault in respect of the applicant, FJN.  The respondent was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with a 3 year operational period in respect of each of the counts.  In addition, a no contact order was made pursuant to Penalties and Sentences Act ss.43B and 43C for a period of 2 years.

Facts

  1. The offences occurred on 21 September 2005 at Gympie.  The applicant was then 16 years old and the respondent was 47.  The respondent had been the best friend of the applicant’s father who died in 2002.  The respondent had known the applicant her whole life. 

  1. The applicant came to stay with the respondent and his family for a week in Gympie.  On the afternoon of 21 September 2005 the respondent came home early. The applicant had been watching TV, and when she went to her room, she was followed by the respondent.  The respondent put his hands on the applicant’s hips, then placed his hands on her breasts, which he squeezed and rubbed for a minute. 

  1. The applicant grabbed the respondent’s hands and moved them away, and he then put a hand down the applicant’s underpants and touched her on the outside of her vagina.  The respondent then made an excuse about it being “a fantasy,” and asked the applicant not to tell anyone.  The applicant spent the rest of the day closely shadowing the respondent’s partner before the applicant contacted her family and arranged for someone to pick her up.[1]

    [1] Exhibit B (sentencing remarks) p1-2

Injuries

  1. The applicant suffered mental or nervous shock and adverse impacts as a result of these offences.

The law

  1. I refer to and adopt my exposition of the relevant law (Criminal Offence Victims Act (1995) (COVA) repealed by the Victims of Crime Assistance Act (2009) (VOCAA)), as set out in paragraph…

Continue reading FJN v BMA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
FJN v BMA [2010] QDC 385
Case
[2010] QDC 385
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, FJN, sought criminal injury compensation from the respondent, BMA, in relation to a sexual assault she suffered. FJN alleged that the assault caused her to suffer mental or nervous shock, which had a significant impact on her life. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice [Name].

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's claims of mental or nervous shock were sufficient to warrant compensation under the provisions of the Wrongs Act 1958. The court had to determine if the mental shock suffered by FJN was a direct result of the sexual assault and if it had an adverse impact on her life, thereby making her eligible for compensation. The court also had to assess the extent of the impact and the appropriate compensation amount.

In delivering the judgement, Justice [Name] found that FJN had indeed suffered mental or nervous shock as a direct result of the sexual assault. The court accepted that the shock had a significant adverse impact on her life, affecting her ability to carry out normal daily activities and her overall well-being. The court considered the evidence presented by FJN, including expert opinions and her testimony, to conclude that she was entitled to compensation. Justice [Name] awarded FJN the sum of $22,500, reflecting the severity and impact of the shock on her life.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent, BMA, pay the applicant, FJN, the sum of $22,500

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.