Henderson v. Van Den Heuvel

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Henderson v Van Den Heuvel [2007] QDC 070

PARTIES:

EMMA KATE HENDERSON  (Applicant)

V

JASON SCOTT VAN DEN HEUVEL         (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

14/05

DIVISION:

Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2007

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $25,500.00 by way of compensation for injury caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Southport on 12 March 2004 and Beenleigh on 22 November 2005. 

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – unlawful stalking – where applicant stalked by respondent over several years – where applicant diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder – whether applicant “has suffered a substantially single state of injury” – single compensation order.    

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 26 (1)(2)(3)(4).

R v Ward ex parte Dooley (2001) 2 Qd R 436.

Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.

COUNSEL:

Mr J. Fenton for the applicant.

The respondent appeared in person. 

SOLICITORS:

Gouldson Legal for the applicant.

Introduction:

  1. The applicant, Emma Kate Henderson (nee Allen), claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for bodily injury she sustained arising out of the criminal conduct of the respondent, Jason Van Den Heuvel, who was convicted firstly by the District Court at Southport on 12 March 2004 of 2 offences of unlawfully stalking the applicant in 2000 and 2001 respectively and secondly, by the District Court at Beenleigh on 22 November 2005 for a further offence of unlawful stalking of the applicant on 25 December 2004 and contravening a restraining order made by His Honour, Judge Healy, on the 12 March 2004.

  1. The respondent was served with the applications and supporting documents on the 7 November 2006[1] and was present at the hearing of the applications on the 26 March 2007. 

    [1] See affidavit of Graeme Kennedy Smith filed 18 December 2006.

  1. There are two applications for compensation before the court as the offences the subject of the applications were dealt with by the District Court at Southport and Beenleigh, respectively on the 12 March 2004 and the 22 November 2005, details of which are set out in paragraph [4] below. The applications for compensation are made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and are supported by the following material:-

(a)         the affidavit with exhibits of the applicant sworn 31 August 2006 and   filed at Beenleigh on 27 October 2006;

(b)          the affidavit with exhibits of Scott Andrew Macoun, Articled Clerk, sworn 3 October 2006 and filed at Beenleigh on 27 October 2006;

(c)          the 2 affidavits with exhibits of Steve Morgan, Psychologist, sworn 30 August 2004 and 17 August 2006 respectively and filed in the Southport and Beenleigh registries;

(d)          the affidavit with exhibit of Graeme Kennedy Smith, Commercial Agent, sworn 11 December 2006 and filed at Beenleigh…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Henderson v. Van Den Heuvel and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] QDC 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Henderson, brought an application for criminal injury compensation against the respondent, Van Den Heuvel, who had stalked Henderson over a period of several years. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland. Henderson had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the stalking and sought compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Henderson had suffered a substantially single state of injury for the purposes of a single compensation order. The court had to determine if Henderson’s psychiatric injuries constituted a single compensable injury, or if they should be treated as separate and distinct injuries, warranting separate compensation orders. The court considered the nature and duration of the stalking and the resultant psychological injuries.

The court found that Henderson had suffered a substantially single state of injury due to the continuous and cumulative effect of the respondent’s unlawful stalking. This continuous course of conduct led to the development of both major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, which the court deemed to be part of a single injury. Consequently, the court granted Henderson a single compensation order. The court ordered the respondent to pay Henderson the sum of $25,500.00 as compensation for the injury caused by the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $25,500.00 by way of compensation for injury caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Southport on 12 March 2004 and Beenleigh on 22 November 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.