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
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
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
The applicant suffered mental or nervous shock, and adverse impacts, as a result of the offences.
The Law
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
- AGLC
- GLC v LRD [2012] QDC 119
- Case
- [2012] QDC 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.