Grahame v Dean - [2001] QSC 420

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Grahame v Dean [2001] QSC 420

PARTIES: PETER IAN GRAHAME
(applicant)
v
WADE ANDREW DEAN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:              SC No 555 of 2001
DIVISION:               Supreme Court at Townsville PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation ORIGINATING
COURT:  Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 9 November 2001

DELIVERED AT: Townsville

HEARING DATE: 2 November 2001

JUDGE: Cullinane J

ORDER: Applicant awarded compensation in the sum of $31,496

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – DISPOSAL OF PRISONERS’ PROPERTY AND ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where respondent convicted of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm to applicant – where applicant suffered gunshot wounds to the stomach and associated internal injuries, a gunshot wound to the arm and psychological sequela – whether the applicant’s compensation should be reduced under s 25(7) Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
(Qld)
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s 25(7) and s 30(3) COUNSEL: G Lynham for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS: Savage & Stout for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf
2

[1] CULLINANE J: The applicant seeks compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him on the 11th January 2000.

[2] The respondent is the stepson of the applicant and was convicted of doing grievous bodily harm, with intent to do grievous bodily harm on 11th January 2000. He was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. This application arises out of the circumstances of that offence.

[3] On the evening of that day, the respondent went to the home of the applicant and his wife (the respondent’s mother). There were other persons present at the time.

[4] A statement of the applicant which was provided to the police and which is exhibited to his affidavit outlines his account of what occurred.

[5] I will return a little later to the history of the relationship between the applicant and the respondent generally. It appears that the respondent had not been residing with the applicant and Mrs Grahame for some six months or so prior to the 7th January
2000 and, in fact, the applicant had not seen the respondent during this time. The respondent, according to the applicant, turned up on that night with two others and there was an argument about money which the applicant alleged the respondent had stolen. The respondent denied stealing money. There was also an argument over a ring which belonged to one of the other persons present and some allegation was made by this person that the applicant had the ring.

[6] According to the applicant he received a telephone call from the respondent the following night. In this telephone call the respondent accused the applicant of having given information to the police about the respondent and some associates.

[7] In the exchanges of 7th January 2000 and the telephone call, there was a good deal of abuse exchanged in which the applicant fully…

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 Grahame v Dean

Details

AGLC: Grahame v Dean [2001] QSC 420
Case: [2001] QSC 420
Decision Date: 9 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Grahame v Dean, the Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the appropriate compensation for the applicant, Peter Ian Grahame, who suffered injuries inflicted by the respondent, Wade Andrew Dean. The injuries resulted from an assault by Dean on Grahame on 11 January 2000. Dean, Grahame's stepson, was convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent and was sentenced to eight years in prison. The compensation application arose from this incident. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the compensation should be reduced under section 25(7) of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 due to any behaviour of Grahame that directly or indirectly contributed to the injuries. Dean argued that Grahame's past mistreatment of him and his mother contributed to the incident, justifying a reduction in compensation. The court considered the extensive history of abuse and violence by Grahame towards Dean and his mother, which was well-documented. While the court accepted that Grahame's conduct had contributed to Dean's actions, it did not find a direct causal link between the specific incident and the past mistreatment. The court applied a common-sense approach rather than a technical one, ultimately deciding to reduce the compensation by one-third, acknowledging the contributory conduct while also considering the severity of the injuries sustained by Grahame.

The court awarded Grahame compensation of $31,496, considering the severity of his injuries and the psychological impact, while also taking into account the contributory behaviour of Grahame in the broader context of their relationship.

Orders