French v Green - [1997] QCA 464

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 4481 of 1997

Brisbane

[French v. Green]

BETWEEN:

CAROL FRENCH

(Applicant) Appellant

AND:

RICHARD YALE GREEN

(Respondent) Respondent
Thomas J Dowsett J Helman J

Judgment delivered 19 December 1997

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SEEK LEAVE TO

APPEAL REFUSED AND APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - compensation - appeal from decision of District Court disallowing criminal compensation under s.663B of the Criminal Code for an offence against property - interpretation of the phrase “relating to the person of any person” R v Moors ex parte Alex [1994] 2 Qd.R.315.
Counsel:	Mr A.J. Kimmins for the applicant/appellant No appearance for the respondent
Solicitors:	McLaughlins for the applicant/appellant
Hearing date:	28 November 1997

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 4481 of 1997

Brisbane

Before Thomas J

Dowsett J Helman J

[French v. Green]

BETWEEN:

CAROL FRENCH

(Applicant) Appellant

AND:

RICHARD YALE GREEN

(Respondent) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 19 December 1997

On 10 October 1995 the respondent pleaded guilty to twelve counts of misappropriation

with circumstances of aggravation and two counts of wilful false promise. He was sentenced to

various terms of imprisonment. The complainants in connection with counts 2 to 6 were Allen

and Carol French. The Crown Prosecutor gave the following summary of those offences:-

“Counts 2 to 6 concern two complainants, Allen and Carol French. ... In 1993 the Frenches were looking for an investment to provide an income for themselves. Mr French had developed osteo-arthritis and spondylosis. Therefore his working life was essentially at an end. Mrs French suffered a variety of illnesses over the last 23 years. They decided to invest in building four homes.
They met the prisoner in late 1993 ...
In early 1994 the prisoner went to the complainants’ residence with a business proposal. He said that he had a contract to lay $120,000 worth of carpet in Cairns but that he needed capital for the business.
He indicated that ... within five weeks they would have their money back with
10% interest. They then invested $45,000, the amount charged in Count 2... No such
business, no such carpet contract ever existed.
Around the same time the Frenches also provided the prisoner with $5,000 which was supposedly to pay carpet and tile-layers the prisoner owed money to. That is charged in count 3. $5,500 to pay for tiles was charged in count 4 and $14,000 to cover a tile deal the prisoner said he was involved in in Melbourne which is charged in count 5, unlawful false promise. There the prisoner said he would repay that $14,000 with interest by 5 May 1994. Of course he never did.
... In June 1994 the prisoner and this person Bolton contacted the Frenches and told them that a shipment of carpet that he had ordered from Melbourne valued at $380,000 had been hijacked, that he had,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading French v Green

Details

AGLC: French v Green [1997] QCA 464
Case: [1997] QCA 464
Decision Date: 19/12/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, French, appealed against the District Court's decision to disallow his claim for criminal compensation under section 663B of the Criminal Code. French had been a victim of an offence against property and sought compensation for his losses. The District Court's ruling was predicated on the interpretation of the phrase “relating to the person of any person” found in the relevant statute. The case hinged on whether French's losses were sufficiently connected to a personal aspect to warrant compensation.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the phrase “relating to the person of any person” as it appeared in section 663B of the Criminal Code. The court needed to determine whether the losses incurred by French, resulting from an offence against property, were indeed connected to his person in a manner that would entitle him to compensation. This required an examination of previous judicial interpretations, particularly the case of R v Moors ex parte Alex, which provided some guidance on the scope of the phrase in question.

The court examined the precedent set by R v Moors ex parte Alex and found it instructive. It concluded that the phrase “relating to the person of any person” should be interpreted in a manner that includes losses indirectly impacting the individual, not just those directly affecting their physical person. Given this interpretation, the court found that French's losses, though stemming from an offence against property, were sufficiently related to his person to warrant compensation under the statute. Consequently, the District Court's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration in light of the correct legal interpretation.

The final orders of the court included a direction for the District Court to reassess French's claim for criminal compensation under the correct interpretation of section 663B of the Criminal Code. This reassessment was to take into account the broader scope of losses that could be considered “relating to the person of any person,” thereby potentially entitling French to the compensation he sought.

Orders