Hannington v Chapman - [2012] QSC 257

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hannington v Chapman [2012] QSC 257

PARTIES:

TRAVIS JOHN HANNINGTON
(applicant)
v
MICHAEL TEX CHAPMAN
(respondent)

FILE NO:

3718 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

7 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 August 2012

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to r 389(2), the applicant has leave to proceed with the application for criminal injuries compensation.

2. The respondent, Michael Tex Chapman, pay to the applicant, Travis John Hannington, the amount of $29,250 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries suffered as a result of the offence for which the respondent was convicted on 14 March 2005.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where the applicant commenced proceedings under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) on 2 May 2007 – where no steps have been taken in the proceeding since 25 July 2007 – where the reasons for the delay are unclear – where the applicant made numerous attempts to follow up the matter with his solicitors – where the applicant’s case was taken over by Legal Aid Queensland in March 2012 – whether leave should be granted to the applicant to proceed

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND
PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION AND
COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the
respondent pleaded guilty to offence of malicious act with intent – where the applicant suffered injuries to his arm in the form of a large flap laceration and compound fracture – where the applicant suffered injuries to his mental health in the form of chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - where the applicant commenced the application for compensation prior to the commencement of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) – where the applicant seeks criminal compensation for injuries sustained pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) – whether the applicant is entitled to criminal injuries compensation

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 22, 24, 25
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 389(2)
Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (qld), s167

Hohn v King[2004] QCA 254, applied
R v Bennett; ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 395; [2001] QCA 395, cited
SAY v AZ ; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 462, cited

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn Harris for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

This is an application for compensation under s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”) for injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of the respondent committing on him the offence of doing a malicious act with intent.[1]
[1]The Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 was repealed by the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009.…

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 Hannington v Chapman

Details

AGLC: Hannington v Chapman [2012] QSC 257
Case: [2012] QSC 257
Decision Date: 7 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hannington v Chapman, the applicant sought leave to proceed with an application for criminal injuries compensation. The dispute arose from an incident on 14 March 2005 where the applicant, Travis John Hannington, sustained injuries including a large flap laceration and compound fracture to his arm, as well as chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder due to a malicious act committed by the respondent, Michael Tex Chapman. The applicant commenced proceedings under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) on 2 May 2007, but no further steps were taken in the proceeding until March 2012 when the case was taken over by Legal Aid Queensland. The applicant sought leave to proceed with the compensation application, despite the significant delay since the last proceeding on 25 July 2007.

The court had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to grant leave to proceed with the application for criminal injuries compensation, and if so, whether the respondent should pay compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The applicant argued that the delay in proceedings was not due to any fault on his part, and that he had made numerous attempts to follow up the matter with his solicitors. The court considered the provisions of the Act, the circumstances of the delay, and the impact of the injuries sustained by the applicant. The court also considered the commencement of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), which did not affect the applicant's entitlement to criminal injuries compensation under the previous Act.

The court granted the applicant leave to proceed with the application for criminal injuries compensation, finding that the delay was not due to any fault on his part. The court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained as a result of the offence for which the respondent was convicted. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the amount of $29,250 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The court found that the applicant's injuries were serious and had a significant impact on his physical and mental health, and that compensation was an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 389(2), the applicant has leave to proceed with the application for criminal injuries compensation.

2. The respondent, Michael Tex Chapman, pay to the applicant, Travis John Hannington, the amount of $29,250 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries suffered as a result of the offence for which the respondent was convicted on 14 March 2005.

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:	Hannington v Chapman [2012] QSC 257
PARTIES:	TRAVIS JOHN HANNINGTON (applicant) v MICHAEL TEX CHAPMAN (respondent)
FILE NO:	3718 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	7 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 August 2012
JUDGE:	Daubney J
ORDERS:	1. Pursuant to r 389(2), the applicant has leave to proceed with the application for criminal injuries compensation. 2. The respondent, Michael Tex Chapman, pay to the applicant, Travis John Hannington, the amount of $29,250 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries suffered as a result of the offence for which the respondent was convicted on 14 March 2005.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where the applicant commenced proceedings under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) on 2 May 2007 – where no steps have been taken in the proceeding since 25 July 2007 – where the reasons for the delay are unclear – where the applicant made numerous attempts to follow up the matter with his solicitors – where the applicant’s case was taken over by Legal Aid Queensland in March 2012 – whether leave should be granted to the applicant to proceed CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent pleaded guilty to offence of malicious act with intent – where the applicant suffered injuries to his arm in the form of a large flap laceration and compound fracture – where the applicant suffered injuries to his mental health in the form of chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - where the applicant commenced the application for compensation prior to the commencement of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) – where the applicant seeks criminal compensation for injuries sustained pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) – whether the applicant is entitled to criminal injuries compensation Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 22, 24, 25 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 389(2) Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (qld), s167 Hohn v King[2004] QCA 254, applied R v Bennett; ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 395; [2001] QCA 395, cited SAY v AZ ; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 462, cited
COUNSEL:	S J Hamlyn Harris for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant No appearance for the respondent