Hawkins v Spucches - [2010] QDC 154

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hawkins v Spucches [2010] QDC 154

PARTIES:

ANDREW DAVID HAWKINS

(Applicant)

v

SAM CHARLES SPUCCHES

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

33 of 2010

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON:

22 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2010

JUDGE:

Bradley DCJ

ORDER:

I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $17,250.00 by way of criminal compensation

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent was convicted of the serious assault of the applicant – where the applicant did not seek medical treatment for the physical injury caused – where the injury resulted in post traumatic stress disorder – where the offence was minor yet it materially contributed to the applicant’s psychological injury.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)

SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462.

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

Mr M Kelly, solicitor McMillan Kelly Thomas for the applicant

Mr M Holmes solicitor for Murphy Schmidt for the respondent

On 2 June 2009 in the District Court at Brisbane the respondent, upon his plea of guilty, was convicted of the serious assault of the applicant. The offence was committed on 30 August 2008 at Brisbane when the respondent assaulted the applicant, a police officer, with intent to resist lawful arrest.

The applicant now seeks an order for compensation for the injuries suffered by him because of the offence pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (the Act).

The respondent was legally represented and appeared at the hearing of the application.

I was not the sentencing judge, but the transcript of the sentence proceedings indicates that the offence took place on the evening of the River Fire Festival in Brisbane. The applicant was conducting traffic control duties on the Story Bridge which was closed to all traffic during the fireworks event. Vehicles were being directed to do a U-turn and travel back in the direction in which they had come.

The applicant was assisting a motorist who had broken down in the far left lane on to the bridge. He observed the headlights of a vehicle coming towards him and attempted to get out of the way. However he was hit on the left side of his body by the vehicle which was driven by the respondent. The respondent stopped his vehicle approximately 5 m further up the road, got out of his vehicle and began shouting at the applicant about the traffic delays. The respondent was waving his arms. The applicant directed the respondent to get back into his vehicle.

The respondent grabbed the applicant’s police torch and the applicant told him that he was under arrest and attempted to restrain him. A struggle ensued. The respondent attempted to hit the applicant with the torch. Another police officer came to assist the applicant and the two officers attempted to restrain the respondent. The applicant was able to retrieve his torch but the respondent grabbed the applicant 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.

Continue reading Hawkins v Spucches

Details

AGLC: Hawkins v Spucches [2010] QDC 154
Case: [2010] QDC 154
Decision Date: 22 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hawkins v Spucches involved an applicant who sought compensation for criminal injuries from a respondent who had been convicted of assaulting the applicant. The applicant did not seek medical treatment for the physical injury caused by the assault but did suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident. The assault was considered minor, but it materially contributed to the applicant's psychological injury. The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to compensation under the relevant legislation and, if so, the appropriate amount of compensation.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for the psychological injury despite not having sought medical treatment for the physical injury. The court needed to consider the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and the extent to which the respondent's actions contributed to the applicant's psychological injury. The court also needed to assess the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant.

The court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the psychological injury caused by the respondent's actions. The court noted that the assault, though minor, materially contributed to the applicant's post-traumatic stress disorder. The court held that the applicant's failure to seek medical treatment for the physical injury did not preclude them from receiving compensation for the psychological injury. The court assessed the appropriate amount of compensation based on the severity of the psychological injury and the extent to which the respondent's actions contributed to it. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $17,250.00 by way of criminal compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $17,250.00 by way of criminal compensation

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:	Hawkins v Spucches [2010] QDC 154
PARTIES:	ANDREW DAVID HAWKINS (Applicant) v SAM CHARLES SPUCCHES (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	33 of 2010
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	22 April 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	23 March 2010
JUDGE:	Bradley DCJ
ORDER:	I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $17,250.00 by way of criminal compensation
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent was convicted of the serious assault of the applicant – where the applicant did not seek medical treatment for the physical injury caused – where the injury resulted in post traumatic stress disorder – where the offence was minor yet it materially contributed to the applicant’s psychological injury. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462.
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	Mr M Kelly, solicitor McMillan Kelly Thomas for the applicant Mr M Holmes solicitor for Murphy Schmidt for the respondent