G v Pratt - [2007] QDC 223

[2007] QDC 223

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE SAMIOS

No 2135 of 2007

G	Applicant
and
NORRIS HENRY PRATT	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/08/2007

ORDER

HIS HONOUR: Pursuant to section 21A of the Evidence Act, because of the relationship of the applicant to the respondent in these proceedings arising, as it does, out of the conviction of the respondent for offences against the applicant, and the nature of the subject matter of the evidence and the applicant's solicitors request notified by email to me that the applicant wishes to have a screen erected, I order that when the applicant is giving evidence, as it is proposed that he be cross-examined, he be obscured from the view of the respondent by the erection of a screen.

...

HIS HONOUR: Despite the applicant's age, those other matters I mentioned persuade me that a screen ought to be erected and also the Court will be closed during the cross-examination of the applicant.

...

HIS HONOUR: This is an application by which the applicant seeks compensation to be determined by the Court pursuant to section 663B subsection 1 of the Criminal Code for personal injuries sustained as a result of offences which led to the conviction of the respondent on 18 December 2001 upon indictment for a number of offences.

The certificate of indictment shows the respondent was convicted of sexual offences with respect to the applicant during a period between 31 December 1991 and 1 January 1994.

The applicant was born on 23 December 1977. He is currently 29 years of age. The respondent is approximately 77 years of age at the present time. When these offences were committed against the applicant, the applicant was 14 and 15 years of age.

I consider it is necessary to point out the nature of the offences in as brief detail as possible. Count 1, the respondent sucked the penis of the applicant at a public toilet. This was during 1992. Count 2, the respondent penetrated the anus of the applicant, again in 1992. Count 3, the respondent took photographs of the applicant when he was naked, again in 1992. Count 4, the respondent penetrated the anus of the applicant, again in 1991. Count 5, the respondent permitted his anus to be penetrated by the applicant, again in 1992. And count 6, the respondent penetrated the anus of the applicant, again in 1992.

There were 11 counts on the indictment, two of which related to other boys. But dealing with the offences that relate to the applicant, count 7 involved the showing of a pornographic video to the applicant by the respondent, and this occurred in 1993. Count 9, the respondent penetrated the anus of the applicant, again in 1993. And count 11, the respondent showed the applicant a pornographic video, again in 1993.
Specifying the dates has some relevance to an argument advanced by the respondent that these offences occurred in one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct. There was a passage of…

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 G v Pratt

Details

AGLC: G v Pratt [2007] QDC 223
Case: [2007] QDC 223
Decision Date: 23 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court case of G v Pratt involved an application by the applicant for compensation for personal injuries sustained from offences committed by the respondent. The applicant was subjected to sexual offences by the respondent between 1991 and 1994 when the applicant was between the ages of 14 and 15. The respondent was convicted of these offences in 2001 and the applicant filed this application for compensation in 2007. The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the applicant's delay in filing the application should disqualify him from receiving compensation, and whether the respondent's conduct materially contributed to the applicant's injuries.

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the application did not disqualify him from receiving compensation. The court considered the applicant's young age at the time of the offences and the impact of the offences on his personal life, and found that it was understandable that the applicant took time to bring the application. The court also found that the respondent's conduct materially contributed to the applicant's injuries. The court assessed the compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and economic loss, and determined that the total compensation was $120,000. However, due to the statutory maximum compensation of $20,000, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the maximum amount of $20,000.

The court also considered whether a screen should be erected during the applicant's cross-examination to prevent the respondent from seeing the applicant. The court found that due to the nature of the offences and the relationship between the applicant and the respondent, a screen should be erected and the court would be closed during the cross-examination. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application. The court allowed the applicant's solicitors to take any course they thought proper and did not stay the order.

Orders