Gibbins v Bugslag - [2010] QDC 383

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gibbins v Bugslag [2010] QDC 383

PARTIES:

BELINDA JANE GIBBINS
applicant

v

COREY BUGSLAG
respondent

FILE NO/S:

17/2010

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

24 September, 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

18 August 2010

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Corey Bugslag pay the applicant Belinda Jane Gibbins the sum of $16, 500.00.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – ASSAULT OCCASIONING BODILY HARM – skull fracture – bruising and laceration – mental or nervous shock

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld).

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s 154, s155.

CASES:

Kennedy v Faafeu [2010] QDC 21

Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436

Atkinson v DiMurro [2007] QDC 349

R v Bennett; ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 295

Riddle v Coffey [2002] QCA 337

Tooley v Eyears [2010] QDC 20

COUNSEL:

Y Chekirova for the applicant
B Schefe for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Campbell & White Lawyers for the applicant
Quinn & Scattini Solicitors for the respondent

Introduction

The respondent Corey Bugslag pleaded guilty (relevantly) in the Beenleigh District Court before me on 25 May 2007 to a count of assault occasioning bodily harm in respect of the applicant Belinda Jane Gibbins. The respondent was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of 18 months. The respondent was sentenced to shorter concurrent periods of imprisonment for three other counts on the indictment which occurred during the course of the same events leading to the offence against the applicant.

Facts

On the evening of 13 March 2004, the applicant attended an address at 13 Macauley Drive, Browns Plains for the 21^st birthday party of her boyfriend, Michael Pearce, which was held at the residence of Michael’s father Wayne Raymond Pearce. At some time around midnight, the respondent and his girlfriend Peta Lovell (a friend of the applicant), along with several others, attended the home and were told that the party was over and that they should leave. This group refused and wanted to get the party started up again, repeatedly requesting that the music be turned back on.

The applicant told Ms Lovell that she [Ms Lovell] was the “only one whom she had invited, the party started at 6, it’s past party time, the party’s over. Your fuckhead boyfriend here who wants to go sleeping around wasn’t invited.” There was then an argument and altercation between the applicant and the respondent. The respondent pushed the applicant over and the applicant hit the respondent twice in the face. The respondent complained of damage to a tooth. The applicant ran in the direction of the backyard and saw that the respondent was being restrained from following her.

The respondent then broke the glass to the open front door, pushed over a fridge and threatened to get the applicant. The applicant ran outside the house and was grabbed by Ms…

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 Gibbins v Bugslag

Details

AGLC: Gibbins v Bugslag [2010] QDC 383
Case: [2010] QDC 383
Decision Date: 24 September, 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Belinda Jane Gibbins brought an application against Corey Bugslag in the court, seeking compensation for injuries sustained due to an assault. The injuries included a fractured skull, bruising, lacerations, and mental or nervous shock. The case was heard and determined by the court, which was tasked with assessing the extent of the injuries and determining the appropriate level of compensation. The central legal issue before the court was whether the compensation sought by Gibbins was commensurate with the injuries and their impact on her life.

The court carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It examined medical reports detailing the extent of Gibbins’ injuries, the treatment required, and the ongoing effects on her health and well-being. Additionally, the court assessed the impact of the assault on Gibbins’ mental state, including the severity and duration of the nervous shock experienced. The court deliberated on the appropriate amount of compensation that would fairly reflect the totality of Gibbins’ losses and suffering, ensuring it was neither excessive nor inadequate. The court found that the sum of $16,500.00 was a fair and just compensation for the injuries and consequences endured by Gibbins as a result of the assault by Bugslag.

In conclusion, the court ordered Corey Bugslag to pay Belinda Jane Gibbins the sum of $16,500.00 as compensation for the injuries and damages she suffered. The decision was made based on a thorough evaluation of the medical evidence, the impact of the assault on Gibbins’ physical and mental health, and the overall circumstances of the case. The court’s ruling provided Gibbins with a measure of financial redress for the harm she had endured.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Corey Bugslag pay the applicant Belinda Jane Gibbins the sum of $16, 500.00.

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:	Gibbins v Bugslag [2010] QDC 383
PARTIES:	BELINDA JANE GIBBINS applicant v COREY BUGSLAG respondent
FILE NO/S:	17/2010
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	24 September, 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	18 August 2010
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent Corey Bugslag pay the applicant Belinda Jane Gibbins the sum of $16, 500.00.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – ASSAULT OCCASIONING BODILY HARM – skull fracture – bruising and laceration – mental or nervous shock
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s 154, s155.
CASES:	Kennedy v Faafeu [2010] QDC 21 Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214 R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436 Atkinson v DiMurro [2007] QDC 349 R v Bennett; ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 295 Riddle v Coffey [2002] QCA 337 Tooley v Eyears [2010] QDC 20
COUNSEL:	Y Chekirova for the applicant B Schefe for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Campbell & White Lawyers for the applicant Quinn & Scattini Solicitors for the respondent