Hartley v Whitby - [2006] QDC 27

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hartley v Whitby [2006] QDC 027

PARTIES:

PHILLIP LESLIE HARTLEY

(Applicant)
v
STUART JOHN WHITBY
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D109 of 2003

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2005

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $57,000.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Cairns on 9 September 2002.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation – stabbing – penetrative wound to the right eye causing legal blindness – additional bodily wounds – grievous bodily harm – compensation Schedule 1 – mental or nervous shock.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss. 24, 25(6) and (7) and 31.

Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.

LMW v Nicholls [2004] QDC 118.

SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12.

COUNSEL:

Mr L Menolotto for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Keith Scott & Associates for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

Introduction

The applicant, Phillip Leslie Hartley presently aged 29 years, claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for bodily injury he sustained arising out of the criminal conduct of the respondent, Stuart John Whitby, who was convicted by the District Court at Cairns on 9 September 2002 for grievous bodily harm to the applicant on or about 17 April 2000. The respondent is currently serving a term of imprisonment and was served with the application and supporting material but made no appearance at the hearing.[1]
[1] See affidavit of service of Timothy Feely sworn 16 September 2003 and filed by leave.

The application for compensation is made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:-

(a) the affidavit with exhibits of the applicant, sworn 17 July 2003;

(b) the affidavit with exhibits of Samit Seth, Solicitor sworn 4 September 2003;

(c) the affidavit with exhibit of Dr Stuart McDonald, Medical Practitioner, sworn 12 August 2003; and

(d) the affidavit with exhibit of John Mountford, Optometrist, sworn 29 July 2003 all filed on 8 September 2003; and

(e) the affidavit with exhibit of Luke Hatzipetrou, Psychologist, sworn 12 August 2005 and filed on 24 August 2005;

Facts

At the time of the incident the applicant and respondent were inmates at the Sir David Longlands Correctional Centre. It seems that before the assault occurred on 17 April 2000 there had been altercations between the applicant and the respondent in the form of threats and intimidation but nothing more. On the morning of 17 April 2000 the applicant had been informed that the respondent wanted to speak to him. The applicant required the permission of the unit manager to do so. Whilst the applicant was waiting at the door of the office of the unit manager, the respondent approached the applicant with a shiv

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 Hartley v Whitby

Details

AGLC: Hartley v Whitby [2006] QDC 27
Case: [2006] QDC 27
Decision Date: 24 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hartley v Whitby involved the applicant, Hartley, seeking compensation for injuries he suffered as a result of the respondent, Whitby's, actions. Whitby had stabbed Hartley, causing a penetrative wound to his right eye that resulted in legal blindness, as well as additional bodily injuries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate amount of compensation Hartley should receive under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. The court had to consider the severity of the injuries, the impact on Hartley's life, and the statutory guidelines provided in Schedule 1 of the Act.

The court examined the nature and extent of Hartley's injuries, noting the significant impact of losing his right eye and the additional physical and psychological trauma he endured. The court assessed these factors against the compensation schedule, which provides a framework for determining compensation based on the type and severity of injuries. The court considered Hartley's loss of income due to his inability to work, the medical expenses he incurred, and the ongoing psychological effects of the assault. In light of these considerations, the court deliberated on the appropriate quantum of compensation that would adequately reflect the harm suffered by Hartley.

The court concluded that Hartley's injuries warranted a substantial award of compensation. It recognised the profound impact of the stabbing on Hartley's life, including his permanent disability and the resultant difficulties in employment and daily living. The court awarded Hartley $57,000.00 in compensation, considering this amount to be commensurate with the severity of his injuries and the statutory guidelines. The court's decision was grounded in a careful analysis of the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring that the compensation reflected the true extent of Hartley's losses.

In summary, the court ordered Whitby to pay Hartley $57,000.00 in compensation for the injuries caused by Whitby's actions. This decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the injuries' impact, in alignment with the guidelines set out in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. The award aimed to provide Hartley with adequate recompense for his physical and psychological harm, as well as the economic consequences of the assault.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $57,000.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Cairns on 9 September 2002.

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:	Hartley v Whitby [2006] QDC 027
PARTIES:	PHILLIP LESLIE HARTLEY (Applicant) v STUART JOHN WHITBY (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D109 of 2003
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	24 February 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2005
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $57,000.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Cairns on 9 September 2002.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – stabbing – penetrative wound to the right eye causing legal blindness – additional bodily wounds – grievous bodily harm – compensation Schedule 1 – mental or nervous shock. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss. 24, 25(6) and (7) and 31. Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156. LMW v Nicholls [2004] QDC 118. SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12.
COUNSEL:	Mr L Menolotto for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Keith Scott & Associates for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.