Hill v Dizo - [2010] QDC 71

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hill v Dizo [2010] QDC 71

PARTIES:

ANITA HILL
(Applicant)

v

EMIL DIZO
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD 3279 of 2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2010

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDER:

That the Respondent pay to the Applicant an amount of $18,000 under s 24 of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence which led to a conviction of the Respondent on 17 December 2007 upon indictment for assault.1.

In accordance with the Act, there is no order as to costs.2.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL COMPENSATION

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 6, 21, 22(4), 24(1)(a) 24(2), 154 and 155

Criminal Offence Regulations 1995

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009

Chong v Chong [2001] Qd R 301

Facer v Bennett [2002] 2 Qd R 295

Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149

VL v HHL [2010] QDC 12

Wren v Gauli [2008] 2 Qd R 383

COUNSEL:

R. Chistopherson for the Applicant

SOLICITORS:

Nathan Lawyers for the Applicant

Introduction

The application in this proceeding was filed on 18 November 2009 and seeks what is commonly called criminal compensation for injuries received as a result of an offence which led to a conviction of the Respondent on 17 December 2007 upon indictment for assault.

There was no appearance for the Respondent and I am satisfied the Respondent has been appropriately served.

Background

The application came on hearing before me on 3 March 2010.

Although the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act’) was repealed by the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009, by reason of the transitional provisions (in particular, ss 154 and 155) an applicant may still apply for a relevant order pursuant to s 24 of the Act.

Section 24(1)

Section 24(1) of the Act provides that the section applies if the convicted person – here the Respondent – is convicted on indictment of a personal offence. (See paragraph (a).) From the Certificate of Indictment of Details it is clear that the Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of assault on 31 August 2005 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland, with the Respondent so pleading guilty on 19 September 2007.

Section 24(2) of the Act states that the person against whom the personal offence is committed – here the Applicant – may apply to the court before which the person was convicted for an order that the convicted person pay compensation to the Applicant for injuries suffered by the Applicant because of the offence. The Respondent was convicted before the District Court. So that is satisfied.

As for the matter of both the “personal offence” and the “injury”, since “personal offence” is defined by s 21 of the Act as an indictable offence committed against the person of someone, and since it is clear that the…

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 Hill v Dizo

Details

AGLC: Hill v Dizo [2010] QDC 71
Case: [2010] QDC 71
Decision Date: 10 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hill, sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) for injuries sustained during an assault committed by the respondent, Dizo. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether Hill was eligible for compensation under the Act, and if so, the appropriate amount to be awarded.

The court examined the criteria set forth in the Act, including the nature and extent of the injuries, the impact on the applicant's physical and psychological well-being, and the applicant's financial circumstances. The court also considered the statutory guidelines and previous cases such as Chong v Chong [2001] Qd R 301 and Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that Hill was indeed eligible for compensation. The court determined the appropriate amount to be $18,000, reflecting the severity of the injuries and the impact on Hill's life.

The court held that Dizo was liable to pay the compensation to Hill under section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The court ordered Dizo to pay Hill the sum of $18,000 within 28 days of the judgment. The court made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Respondent pay to the Applicant an amount of $18,000 under s 24 of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence which led to a conviction of the Respondent on 17 December 2007 upon indictment for assault.1.

In accordance with the Act, there is no order as to costs.2.

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:	Hill v Dizo [2010] QDC 71
PARTIES:	ANITA HILL (Applicant) v EMIL DIZO (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD 3279 of 2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 March 2010
JUDGE:	Dorney QC DCJ
ORDER:	That the Respondent pay to the Applicant an amount of $18,000 under s 24 of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence which led to a conviction of the Respondent on 17 December 2007 upon indictment for assault.1. In accordance with the Act, there is no order as to costs.2.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL COMPENSATION Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 6, 21, 22(4), 24(1)(a) 24(2), 154 and 155 Criminal Offence Regulations 1995 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 Chong v Chong [2001] Qd R 301 Facer v Bennett [2002] 2 Qd R 295 Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337 RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149 VL v HHL [2010] QDC 12 Wren v Gauli [2008] 2 Qd R 383
COUNSEL:	R. Chistopherson for the Applicant
SOLICITORS:	Nathan Lawyers for the Applicant