GLC v LRD

Case [2012] QDC 119


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

GLC v LRD  [2012] QDC 119

PARTIES:

GLC
(applicant)

v

LRD
(
respondent)

FILE NO:

42/2010

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

31 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2012

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent LRD pay the applicant GLC the sum of $37,500

CATCHWORDS:

Application – criminal compensation – indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care – leave to proceed granted - mental or nervous shock – adverse impacts – whether competing contributory factors  

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)

Victims of Crime Assistance Act2009 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) r. 389(2)

CASES:

JMR obo SRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147

Tyler v Custom Corp Ltd & Ors [2000] QCA 178

SAY v AZ; ex-parte Attorney General of Queensland [2006] QCA 462

COUNSEL:

F Muirhead (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

  1. The respondent, LRD, appeared before Judge Nase at the Beenleigh District Court on 30 August 2004 and entered pleas of guilty to one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 under care, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 12, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care, each in respect of the applicant GLC.  On each count, the respondent was sentenced to a prison probation order, of twelve months’ imprisonment and three years’ probation.[1]

    [1]Exhibit A (verdict and judgment record), Affidavit of Melissa Lo affirmed 1 February 2012.

Facts

  1. The respondent, on a number of occasions, was babysitting the applicant, and utilised those occasions to rub the applicant on the outside of her vagina (outside of clothing) – count 1; touched the applicant on the outside of her vagina (inside her clothing) – count 2; touched the applicant on the outside of her vagina (inside of clothing) – count 3; touched the applicant on the outside of her vagina (inside of clothing) – count 4; and touched the applicant on the outside of her vagina (inside of clothing) – count 5.  The applicant was aged between 10 and 12 years of age at the relevant time.  The applicant’s family and the respondent’s family were friends, and the respondent regularly babysat the applicant.[2]

    [2]Exhibit C (Schedule of Facts), Affidavit of Melissa Lo affirmed 1 February 2012.

Injuries

  1. The applicant suffered mental or nervous shock, and adverse impacts, as a result of the offences.

The Law

  1. The application in these proceedings was filed on 28 January 2010, subsequent to the repeal of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA) by the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (VOCAA) which commenced on 1 December 2009.  The application complies with the relevant transitional provisions of VOCAA ss. 154 and 155, and has been brought in compliance with…

Continue reading GLC v LRD

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
GLC v LRD [2012] QDC 119
Case
[2012] QDC 119
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, GLC, sought criminal injury compensation for indecent treatment while under the care of the respondent, LRD. GLC was a child under 16 years of age at the time of the abuse. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where GLC applied for leave to proceed with the claim for compensation. The legal issues before the court were whether GLC was entitled to compensation for mental or nervous shock, the adverse impacts of the abuse, and whether there were any competing contributory factors that would reduce the award of compensation.

The court found that GLC was entitled to compensation for the mental or nervous shock resulting from the abuse. The court accepted that the abuse had significant adverse impacts on GLC’s life, including difficulties in forming and maintaining relationships, and ongoing anxiety and depression. The court also found that there were no competing contributory factors that would reduce the award of compensation. The court accepted GLC’s evidence that the abuse had a profound impact on their life, and that the effects of the abuse were ongoing.

In light of the above findings, the court granted GLC leave to proceed with the claim for compensation. The court found that GLC was entitled to be compensated for the mental or nervous shock and adverse impacts of the abuse. The court awarded GLC the sum of $37,500 in compensation. The court found that this sum was appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the severity of the abuse and the ongoing impact on GLC’s life. The court also noted that the award was not reduced by any competing contributory factors.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent LRD pay the applicant GLC the sum of $37,500

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.