H v Strohfeld - [2004] QDC 299

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

H v Strohfeld [2004] QDC 299

PARTIES:

H (Applicant)
v.
STEVEN JOHN STROHFELD (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

316 of 2004

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Compensation Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

27 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2004

JUDGE:

O’Brien DCJ

ORDER:

Order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $20,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by her as a consequence of the offences for which the respondent was convicted on 2 June 1998.

Further order that the respondent should pay 50% of the costs of and incidental to the applicant’s application, in such amount as may be agreed, or in the absence of agreement, to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK – where respondent convicted of numerous sexual offences – where applicant diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder – assessment of compensation under both Criminal Code and Criminal Offence Victims Act

HV v LN [2000] QCA 472, 118 A.Crim.R. 53
KAB v. DJB (2000) QSC 498
MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410
HW v LO [2001] 2 QdR 415
R v. Tiltman ex parte Dawe, Supreme Court Motion 324 of 1995, delivered on 22^nd June 1995
Y and L v. M [2002] QDC 325

Criminal Code, s.663B, Chapter 65A
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, s.40(1), s.46

COUNSEL:

Mr J Stevenson (sol) appeared for the applicant.
No appearance by the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant.

On 2 June 1998, in the District Court at Beenleigh, the respondent, Steven John Strohfeld, pleaded guilty before me to a number of offences of a sexual nature. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

The victim of those offences, H, now seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by her as a consequence of the commission of those offences.

It is necessary, in this case, that I should, at the outset, make some reference to the circumstances of the offences of which the respondent was convicted. Although they were eight in number, they related to five separate incidents.

The first incident, which involved Count 2 on the indictment, occurred in 1995, some time “after September but before the school holidays.” The offence involved touching and licking of the applicant's vaginal area.

The next incident occurred “during the 1995 Christmas school holidays, but prior to Christmas Day” (the indictment actually charged between 1 December 1995 and 25 December 1995), and is encompassed in Counts 3 and 4. Those offences involved digital penetration as well as an act of masturbation by the respondent.

The next incident in time involved Counts 5 and 6 which occurred between 1 May 1997 and 1 August 1997. Those offences, which were perhaps the most serious of all, involved digital penetration and an attempt at penile penetration which gave rise to a charge of attempted rape.

Count 7, which also occurred during the mid-part of 1997, involved an unwanted display of physical affection by the respondent, and Count 8,…

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 H v Strohfeld

Details

AGLC: H v Strohfeld [2004] QDC 299
Case: [2004] QDC 299
Decision Date: 27 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of H v Strohfeld, the applicant sought compensation for injuries suffered as a consequence of the respondent's criminal offences. The applicant, diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, argued that her condition was a direct result of the crimes for which the respondent was convicted on 2 June 1998. The court had to determine the appropriate amount of compensation under both the Criminal Code and the Criminal Offence Victims Act.

The central legal issues revolved around the extent of the applicant's injuries and whether these injuries were compensable under the relevant legislation. The court examined the criteria for awarding compensation for mental or nervous shock and assessed whether the applicant's condition met the statutory requirements for compensation. It was necessary to determine if the respondent's criminal acts were the direct cause of the applicant's post-traumatic stress disorder and if the applicant had suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness.

The court concluded that the applicant's post-traumatic stress disorder was a direct consequence of the respondent's criminal offences, and the injuries were compensable under the Criminal Offence Victims Act. The court found that the applicant's condition met the statutory criteria for compensation, and it was appropriate to award the sum of $20,000 as compensation. The court also ordered that the respondent pay 50% of the costs of and incidental to the applicant's application, in such amount as may be agreed or, in the absence of agreement, to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $20,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by her as a consequence of the offences for which the respondent was convicted on 2 June 1998.

Further order that the respondent should pay 50% of the costs of and incidental to the applicant’s application, in such amount as may be agreed, or in the absence of agreement, to be assessed.

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:	H v Strohfeld [2004] QDC 299
PARTIES:	H (Applicant) v. STEVEN JOHN STROHFELD (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	316 of 2004
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Compensation Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	27 April 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 March 2004
JUDGE:	O’Brien DCJ
ORDER:	Order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $20,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by her as a consequence of the offences for which the respondent was convicted on 2 June 1998. Further order that the respondent should pay 50% of the costs of and incidental to the applicant’s application, in such amount as may be agreed, or in the absence of agreement, to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK – where respondent convicted of numerous sexual offences – where applicant diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder – assessment of compensation under both Criminal Code and Criminal Offence Victims Act HV v LN [2000] QCA 472, 118 A.Crim.R. 53 KAB v. DJB (2000) QSC 498 MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410 HW v LO [2001] 2 QdR 415 R v. Tiltman ex parte Dawe, Supreme Court Motion 324 of 1995, delivered on 22^nd June 1995 Y and L v. M [2002] QDC 325 Criminal Code, s.663B, Chapter 65A Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, s.40(1), s.46
COUNSEL:	Mr J Stevenson (sol) appeared for the applicant. No appearance by the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant.