Heron v Baker

Case [2011] QDC 299


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Heron v Baker [2011] QDC 299

PARTIES:

ROBYN MYRA HERON
(Applicant)

v

KIM BAKER
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

23/2010

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2011

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent Kim Baker pay the applicant Robyn Myra Heron the sum of $23,250.

CATCHWORDS:

Application – criminal compensation – assault occasioning bodily harm – bruising/laceration – mental or nervous shock

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss. 21, 25(7) & 40(1)

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) ss. 154 & 155

CASES:

Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214

SAY v AZ; ex-parte Attorney General [2006] QCA 462

COUNSEL:

Ms F Muirhead (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

  1. The respondent, Kim Baker, pleaded guilty in the District Court, Beenleigh on 19 August 2009 to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm on the applicant, Robyn Heron, as well as other counts of attempted arson, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, wilful damage (two charges) and serious assault (on a police officer).

  1. In respect of count 1 (the only count relevant to the “person”[1] of the applicant) the respondent was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, concurrent, wholly suspended with an operational period of three years, on 18 November 2009.[2]

    [1] COVA s.21.

    [2] Exhibit A (Certificate of Indictment), Affidavit of Melissa Lo, affirmed 13 May 2011.

Facts

  1. The applicant and respondent had been in a relationship for approximately ten years, although at the time of the relevant incident (12 March 2008) the applicant and respondent were no longer in that relationship.  The schedule of facts states as follows:-

“At approximately 2.15 pm on 12 March 2008 the [applicant] received text messages from the [respondent].  In the messages, the [respondent] requested that the [applicant] return property. After receiving the messages, the [applicant] collected the [respondent’s] belongings and put them in a plastic bag.  The [applicant] sent a text message to the [respondent] advising that the property was ready for collection and requesting some property that the [respondent] had.

The [respondent] then attended the [applicant’s] house. As the [respondent] was walking up the driveway, the [applicant] asked “where is my stuff?”  The [respondent] replied that she had not had time to gather the [applicant’s] property.  The [respondent] then reached and grabbed the plastic bag that the [applicant] was holding.  The [applicant] gripped on to the plastic bag.  The [respondent] held the [applicant] with her right arm and hit the [applicant] with her left arm.  The [applicant] grabbed the [respondent] at the back of her hair with her right hand and forced the [respondent’s] face down on to the car bonnet to prevent the [respondent] from hitting her.  The [respondent] then left in her car.[3]”

[3] Exhibit C (Schedule of Facts), Affidavit of Melissa Lo affirmed 13 May 2011.

Injuries

  1. The applicant suffered…

Continue reading Heron v Baker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Heron v Baker [2011] QDC 299
Case
[2011] QDC 299
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robyn Myra Heron brought an application for criminal injuries compensation in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. She sought compensation for injuries she sustained as a result of an assault by Kim Baker. The injuries included bruising and laceration, as well as mental or nervous shock. The court was required to determine whether the injuries were sufficient to warrant compensation under the relevant legislation. The key issue was whether the shock experienced by the applicant was of a severity that warranted compensation. The court considered the evidence presented by the applicant and found that her injuries, including the shock, were of a nature that warranted compensation. The court found that the shock experienced by the applicant was significant and warranted compensation. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $23,250 in compensation for the injuries she sustained in the assault. The court took into account the severity of the injuries and the impact they had on the applicant's life. The court also considered the evidence presented by the applicant and found that it was sufficient to warrant compensation. The court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay the compensation as determined.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent Kim Baker pay the applicant Robyn Myra Heron the sum of $23,250.

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.