Griffin v Yeap; McCartney v Yeap - [2011] QDC 369

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Griffin v Yeap & Ors; McCartney v Yeap & Ors [2011] QDC 369

PARTIES:

PHILLIP PAUL GRIFFIN
(Applicant)

v

VINCENT YEAP
(First Respondent)

DAVID DUONG
(Second Respondent)

DENNY ENG
(Third Respondent)

THINH DO
(Fourth Respondent)

PHILLIP DUONG
(Fifth Respondent)

CLINTON GEE
(Sixth Respondent)

SHAUN JOSEPH MCCARTNEY
(Applicant)

v

VINCENT YEAP
(First Respondent)

DAVID DUONG
(Second Respondent)

DENNY ENG
(Third Respondent)

THINH DO
(Fourth Respondent)

PHILLIP DUONG
(Fifth Respondent)

CLINTON GEE
(Sixth Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

153/2009

152/2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

21 December, 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

25 November, 2011

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The first respondent Vincent Yeap, the second respondent David Duong, the third respondent Denny Eng, the fourth respondent Thinh Do, the fifth respondent Phillip Duong and the sixth respondent Clinton Gee pay the applicant Phillip Paul Griffin the sum of $50,250.

The first respondent Vincent Yeap, the second respondent David Duong, the third respondent Denny Eng, the fourth respondent Thinh Do, the fifth respondent Phillip Duong and the sixth respondent Clinton Gee pay the applicant Shaun Joseph McCartney the sum of $75,000.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – Criminal Compensation – malicious act with intent – bruising/laceration – fractured skull/brain damage – neck/back/chest injury – mental or nervous shock – facial disfigurement or bodily scarring

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss.24, 25(7), 26 and 40(1)

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) ss. 154 and 155

CASES:

Laning v C-K [2010] QDC 425

Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214

COUNSEL:

Mr L. Brazel for the applicant Phillip Paul Griffin

Mr L. Brazel for the applicant Shaun Joseph McCartney

No appearance for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Gouldson Legal, solicitors for the applicant Phillip Paul Griffin

Gouldson Legal, solicitors for the applicant Shaun Joseph McCartney

The respondents were not represented

Introduction

Each of the respondents, Vincent Yeap (first respondent), David Duong (second respondent), Denny Eng (third respondent), Thinh Do (fourth respondent), Phillip Duong (fifth respondent) and Clinton Gee (sixth respondent), pleaded guilty on various dates in 2007 and 2008 to one count of malicious act with intent in respect to the applicant Phillip Paul Griffin, and one count of malicious act with intent in respect to the applicant Shaun Joseph McCartney.

The first respondent, Vincent Yeap, and the third respondent, Denny Eng, were both sentenced by me as juveniles at the Beenleigh Childrens Court on 29 August 2007. Each was sentenced to two years’ detention in respect of the counts involving the applicant Phillip Griffin and the applicant Shaun McCartney.[1]
[1] Exhibit FJT-9 affidavit of Fabian Tauchmann sworn 25 November 2009.

The second respondent, David Duong, was sentenced by me in the Childrens Court of Queensland at Beenleigh on 19 October 2007, relevantly, in respect of counts relating to each of the applicants Phillip Griffin and Shaun McCartney. In respect of each of those counts Phillip Duong was ordered to serve a period of two years’ detention.[2]
[2] Exhibit FJT-13 affidavit of…

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 Griffin v Yeap; McCartney v Yeap

Details

AGLC: Griffin v Yeap; McCartney v Yeap [2011] QDC 369
Case: [2011] QDC 369
Decision Date: 21 December, 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Paul Griffin and Shaun Joseph McCartney applied for compensation for injuries sustained during an assault. Vincent Yeap, David Duong, Denny Eng, Thinh Do, Phillip Duong and Clinton Gee were identified as the perpetrators of the assault and became the respondents in the case. The applicants sought compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2009 (NSW) for their respective injuries, which included bruising, lacerations, a fractured skull, brain damage, neck, back and chest injuries, mental or nervous shock, and facial disfigurement or bodily scarring.

The legal issues that the court was required to determine included whether the injuries suffered by the applicants were a result of a malicious act with intent, as required by the Act, and whether the applicants were entitled to compensation under the Act for the injuries they sustained. The court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties to determine whether the applicants' injuries met the criteria for compensation under the Act.

The court found that the applicants' injuries were a result of a malicious act with intent and that the applicants were entitled to compensation under the Act for the injuries they sustained. The court considered the severity and extent of the injuries, the impact on the applicants' lives, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court awarded the applicants compensation for their injuries, with Phillip Paul Griffin receiving $50,250 and Shaun Joseph McCartney receiving $75,000.

The court ordered that Vincent Yeap, David Duong, Denny Eng, Thinh Do, Phillip Duong and Clinton Gee pay Phillip Paul Griffin and Shaun Joseph McCartney compensation for their injuries. The amounts awarded were determined based on the severity and extent of the injuries and the impact on the applicants' lives.

Orders

Orders of the court

The first respondent Vincent Yeap, the second respondent David Duong, the third respondent Denny Eng, the fourth respondent Thinh Do, the fifth respondent Phillip Duong and the sixth respondent Clinton Gee pay the applicant Phillip Paul Griffin the sum of $50,250.

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:	Griffin v Yeap & Ors; McCartney v Yeap & Ors [2011] QDC 369
PARTIES:	PHILLIP PAUL GRIFFIN (Applicant) v VINCENT YEAP (First Respondent) DAVID DUONG (Second Respondent) DENNY ENG (Third Respondent) THINH DO (Fourth Respondent) PHILLIP DUONG (Fifth Respondent) CLINTON GEE (Sixth Respondent) SHAUN JOSEPH MCCARTNEY (Applicant) v VINCENT YEAP (First Respondent) DAVID DUONG (Second Respondent) DENNY ENG (Third Respondent) THINH DO (Fourth Respondent) PHILLIP DUONG (Fifth Respondent) CLINTON GEE (Sixth Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	153/2009 152/2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	21 December, 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	25 November, 2011
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The first respondent Vincent Yeap, the second respondent David Duong, the third respondent Denny Eng, the fourth respondent Thinh Do, the fifth respondent Phillip Duong and the sixth respondent Clinton Gee pay the applicant Phillip Paul Griffin the sum of $50,250. The first respondent Vincent Yeap, the second respondent David Duong, the third respondent Denny Eng, the fourth respondent Thinh Do, the fifth respondent Phillip Duong and the sixth respondent Clinton Gee pay the applicant Shaun Joseph McCartney the sum of $75,000.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – Criminal Compensation – malicious act with intent – bruising/laceration – fractured skull/brain damage – neck/back/chest injury – mental or nervous shock – facial disfigurement or bodily scarring
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss.24, 25(7), 26 and 40(1) Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) ss. 154 and 155
CASES:	Laning v C-K [2010] QDC 425 Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214
COUNSEL:	Mr L. Brazel for the applicant Phillip Paul Griffin Mr L. Brazel for the applicant Shaun Joseph McCartney No appearance for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Gouldson Legal, solicitors for the applicant Phillip Paul Griffin Gouldson Legal, solicitors for the applicant Shaun Joseph McCartney The respondents were not represented