Green v Manzoni - [2010] QDC 69

[2010] QDC 69

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 525 of 2009

GREGORY JOHN GREEN	Applicant
and
DAVID MANZONI	Respondent

SOUTHPORT

..DATE 23/02/2010

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Compensation - applicant attended for cross-examination as required by respondent - respondent's request for adjournment pending outcome of application to appeal out of time against his conviction refused - compensation order made, but stayed

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA) by Gregory John Green. He is a mature man in his early 50s. The respondent is a mature man who had offered the applicant the hospitality of his home, perhaps following a matrimonial breakdown.

A jury convicted the respondent, Mr Manzoni, of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, after a lengthy trial. That occurred in early November 2008. In recent days Application to Appeal number 17 of 2010 has been filed in the Court of Appeal by Mr Manzoni against his conviction. It remains to be seen whether he will get an extension of time. I declined his application for an adjournment of this proceeding pending the outcome in the Court of Appeal

The applicant attended the cross-examination, as required by Mr Manzoni. I directed that questioning of the applicant occur, indicating that for the protection of Mr Manzoni an order for compensation made today would be stayed until further order or until the outcome of the Court of Appeal proceedings is known.

Mr Manzoni, on the date of the offence, which was 12th of January 2006, somehow lost his self control, ordered his house guest to go and then started attacking him with what are described as baseball bats, one of metal composition, the other wood.

The cross-examination that occurred today did not particularly help Mr Manzoni’s position, although it did not make it any worse. It confirmed that the matters Mr Green complains about are essentially self-diagnosed. He fortunately, given what potentially might have happened, has not suffered any serious long term consequences of the attack.

He complains of interference with his hearing in the form of tinnitus which is especially bad in one ear. That interferes with his sleep. Indeed, he needs a noisy environment to sleep to distract him from the tinnitus.

He had, early on, alarming consequences of loss of his colour vision. That started to resolve in a week or so and completely resolved within months. So far as vision is concerned, he has a floater in one eye which is still there. He sought specialist advice and was advised to come back if there is any dramatic change in vision or the floater should change.

It would appear that there is a diagnosis, a self diagnosis, of some psychological harm. Mr Green suggests that he and indeed his children are still in fear of Mr Manzoni and that that is interfering with their respective lifestyles.

A contention arose in the cross-examination that Mr Green is not so nervous that he has refrained from contact by…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Green v Manzoni and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QDC 69
Decision Date: 23/02/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Green v Manzoni, the applicant, Gregory John Green, sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA) from the respondent, David Manzoni, who had been convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed. The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of compensation, if any, to be awarded to Mr Green for the injuries and psychological impact he had suffered as a result of the assault. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the injuries, as well as any relevant medical or psychological evidence, to determine the appropriate compensation.

The court considered the injuries sustained by Mr Green during the assault, including bruising, lacerations, and tinnitus, as well as any psychological impact. The court also took into account the fact that Mr Green had not suffered any serious long-term consequences from the attack. The court determined that the appropriate compensation to be awarded to Mr Green was 17 per cent of the maximum amount, which amounted to $12,750. The court made the order for compensation, but stayed it pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal proceedings or further order.

In summary, the court awarded Mr Green compensation for the injuries and psychological impact he had suffered as a result of the assault by Mr Manzoni, but stayed the order pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal proceedings. The court considered the nature and extent of the injuries, as well as any relevant medical or psychological evidence, to determine the appropriate compensation. The court determined that the appropriate compensation to be awarded to Mr Green was 17 per cent of the maximum amount, which amounted to $12,750. The order for compensation was stayed pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal proceedings or further order.

Orders