Furlong v Hayes - [2010] QDC 311

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Furlong v Hayes [2010] QDC 311

PARTIES:

SCOTT WILLIAM ANDREW FURLONG
APPLICANT

v.

BROCK RANDY HAYES
RESPONDENT

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh District Court

DELIVERED ON:

2 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

17 December 2009; 2 March 2010

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

Order that the respondent, Brock Randy Hayes, pay the applicant, Scott William Andrew Furlong, the sum of $11,250

CATCHWORDS:

Application – Criminal Compensation – Serious Assault – Assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed – Bruising/lacerations – mental or nervous shock

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)
Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld)

CASES:

Paterson v Chand and Chand [2008] QDC 214.

COUNSEL:

J. Kimmins for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Stockley Furlong Lawyers for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

Introduction

HIS HONOUR: The applicant, Scott William Andrew Furlong, seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him in an incident which occurred on 12 April 2006. The respondent, Brock Randy Hayes, pleaded guilty to a large number of indictable and summary offences before me on 31 July 2007, including (relevant to this application) offences of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and serious assault, both in respect of the applicant. The respondent was sentenced (relevantly) to three years' imprisonment on each count, with a parole release date of 31 July 2007. A period of 474 days of pre-sentence custody was declared time served in respect of these sentences.

Facts
The relevant facts are contained in the Schedule of Facts (Sentence Exhibit 4) and are as follows:- "At about 5 p.m. on 12 April 2006, police attended a residence in Woodridge to execute a search warrant. Police had received information that a firearm was present at the address and were therefore wearing bullet-proof vests. Police had also received information that the [respondent] was a resident of the address. Shortly after police arrived, the [respondent] attended the address. When the [respondent] saw police, he immediately ran down the street towards parkland, throwing away items of property, including a black knapsack, as he went. Police pursued on foot and the [respondent] ran into a nearby house. Police located him inside and he ran off into the back yard of the residence. Police pursued the [respondent] who stopped after a short distance and pointed a silver metal object at police. The object was protruding out of the top of a bag, such that police could not see clearly what it was and immediately thought it was the barrel of a firearm or a knife. Police produced their firearms and called for the [respondent] to drop his weapon. The [respondent] refused and yelled out obscenities.

The [respondent] started to run and was tackled by police. A struggle ensued, during which the three complainant police officers [a reference to police officers Groenhuijzen, Furlong and Poulsen] were injured. The [respondent] stabbed Detective Groenhuijzen on numerous occasions with the silver metal protruding object, hitting him in…

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 Furlong v Hayes

Details

AGLC: Furlong v Hayes [2010] QDC 311
Case: [2010] QDC 311
Decision Date: 2 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Furlong v Hayes involved an application for criminal injury compensation filed by Scott Furlong against Brock Hayes. Furlong sought compensation for injuries sustained during an incident in which Hayes assaulted Furlong with a knife, resulting in bruising and lacerations. Furlong also claimed compensation for the mental or nervous shock experienced as a consequence of the attack. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Hayes' actions constituted a serious assault, and if so, whether Furlong was entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. The court needed to determine the severity of the assault and the extent to which Furlong's physical and psychological injuries warranted compensation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the compensation sought was reasonable and appropriate.

The court found that Hayes' assault on Furlong, which involved the use of a knife, was indeed a serious assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed. The injuries sustained by Furlong, including bruising and lacerations, met the threshold for compensation under the Act. Furthermore, the court accepted that Furlong's experience of mental or nervous shock was a legitimate consequence of the attack, and therefore, compensable. The court considered the amount of compensation sought reasonable and granted Furlong the sum of $11,250. The court ordered Hayes to pay Furlong this amount in satisfaction of his claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the respondent, Brock Randy Hayes, pay the applicant, Scott William Andrew Furlong, the sum of $11,250

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.

CITATION:	Furlong v Hayes [2010] QDC 311
PARTIES:	SCOTT WILLIAM ANDREW FURLONG APPLICANT v. BROCK RANDY HAYES RESPONDENT
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh District Court
DELIVERED ON:	2 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	17 December 2009; 2 March 2010
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	Order that the respondent, Brock Randy Hayes, pay the applicant, Scott William Andrew Furlong, the sum of $11,250
CATCHWORDS:	Application – Criminal Compensation – Serious Assault – Assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed – Bruising/lacerations – mental or nervous shock
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld)
CASES:	Paterson v Chand and Chand [2008] QDC 214.
COUNSEL:	J. Kimmins for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Stockley Furlong Lawyers for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.