Forsyth v McGrady

Case [2005] QDC 130


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Forsyth v McGrady [2005] QDC 130

PARTIES:

ANNETTE JOY FORSYTH

(Applicant)
v
WAYNE WILLIAM McGRADY
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D7 of 2005

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2005

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $16,500.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by this Court at Kingaroy on 4 July 2003.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation – unlawful and indecent assault – including bruising – compensation Schedule 1 – mental or nervous shock.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss. 24, 25(6) and (7) and 31.

Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.

COUNSEL:

Mr S Lynch for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Michael Mason Solicitor for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

Introduction

  1. The applicant, Annette Joy Forsyth, claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for alleged bodily injury she sustained on 4 February 2002 arising out of the criminal conduct of the respondent, Wayne William McGrady, who was convicted by this court at Kingaroy on 4 July 2003 for unlawfully and indecently assaulting the applicant on the 4 February 2002. The respondent although being served with the application made no appearance at the hearing.

  1. The application for compensation is made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:-

(a)        the affidavit with exhibits of the applicant, sworn 29 March 2005 and filed in this court on 21 April 2005;

(b)        the affidavit with exhibits of Michael Mason, solicitor sworn 20 April 2005 and filed in this court on 21 April 2005; and

(c)        the affidavit with exhibit of Manuela Habicht sworn 24 February 2005 and filed in this court on 21 April 2005.

Facts

  1. The applicant swears that she was the victim of an assault by the respondent the circumstances of which are summarised in his Honour Judge Dodds’ sentencing remarks being Exhibit “1” to the affidavit of Michael Mason.  The incident occurred when the applicant had driven the respondent and others to a caravan park where the others alighted from the vehicle after which the respondent commenced to assault the applicant in various ways in an attempt to have sexual intercourse with her.  The assault included grabbing the applicant’s leg and breasts and attempting to have her touch his penis and to put his penis into her.  The respondent’s attempts were ultimately successfully resisted and finally the applicant left the scene.

Injuries

  1. The applicant describes her injuries in paragraphs 7 to 10 of her affidavit and primarily come under the general category of “mental or nervous shock” although she also complained of some minor “…pain in right shoulder and her left hipbone”.[1]

    [1]           See page 5 of Exhibit “A” to the affidavit of Manuela Habicht filed 21 April 2005.

Continue reading Forsyth v McGrady

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Forsyth v McGrady [2005] QDC 130
Case
[2005] QDC 130
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Forsyth v McGrady involved an application by the applicant, Forsyth, for criminal injury compensation pursuant to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act 2009. The dispute centred on injuries the applicant sustained from the respondent, McGrady, which included bruising and mental or nervous shock. The matter was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue was whether the injuries suffered by the applicant qualified for compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the injuries sustained, which included bruising, could be classified as physical injuries warranting compensation. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the applicant's claim for mental or nervous shock was valid under the Act.

The court, in its reasoning, acknowledged the statutory framework provided by the Criminal Injury Compensation Act and examined the nature of the injuries sustained by the applicant. It noted that the applicant suffered bruising, which qualified as a physical injury under the Act. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's claim for mental or nervous shock was also valid, as the statutory provisions allowed for compensation for such injuries. The court applied the criteria outlined in the Compensation Schedule 1, which includes compensation for physical injuries and mental or nervous shock. It concluded that the applicant's injuries met the statutory requirements and thus were eligible for compensation.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $16,500.00 as compensation for the injuries caused by the respondent. The decision was grounded in the statutory provisions of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, which the court interpreted to include both physical injuries and mental or nervous shock as compensable injuries. The court's judgment was clear and concise, affirming the applicant's eligibility for compensation under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $16,500.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by this Court at Kingaroy on 4 July 2003.

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.