Hines v Rauhina - [2010] QDC 299

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hines v Rauhina [2010] QDC 299

PARTIES:

STEVEN HINES

(Applicant)

v

PETER DOUGLAS RAUHINA

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3376/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:

District Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 June, 16 and 30 July 2010

JUDGE:

Irwin DCJ

ORDER:

Order the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $16,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondent convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant suffered physical and psychological injuries as a result of the offence – assessment of compensation

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondent convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant suffered physical injuries including a fractured left ankle, abrasions and bruising as a result of the offence – whether the injury to the ankle was caused by the respondent – whether the fractured ankle could be assessed as severe with reference to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) – assessment of compensation

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondent convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where applicant suffered psychological injuries as a result of the offence – where psychologist and psychiatrist found that the applicant suffered from an adjustment disorder – where psychologist found the applicant suffered from an alcohol abuse disorder – where the assessment of whole person assessment was reduced to take into account the effect of an assault on the applicant to which the respondent was not a party – contribution – assessment of compensation – whether compensation should be reduced

Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld)

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), ss 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, Schedule 1

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 110(c)

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 167

Herron v Herron [2009] QDC 419, considered

Hill v Dizo [2010] QDC 71, applied

JMRoboSRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147, applied

R v Bennett, ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 295, applied

R v Chong, ex parte Chong [2001] Qd R 301, applied

R v Kazakoff,ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320, cited

R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe [1995]…

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 Hines v Rauhina

Details

AGLC: Hines v Rauhina [2010] QDC 299
Case: [2010] QDC 299
Decision Date: 6 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hines v Rauhina, the applicant, Hines, sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) after suffering physical and psychological injuries resulting from a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle by Rauhina. The Queensland District Court was tasked with assessing the quantum of compensation due to Hines.

The court was required to determine whether the injuries claimed by Hines were caused by Rauhina's actions and whether the injuries met the threshold of severity as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Act. This included determining the extent to which the physical injuries, such as the fractured ankle, were attributable to Rauhina and whether the psychological injuries were a direct result of the incident. The court also needed to assess whether any pre-existing conditions or other incidents contributed to Hines's injuries, which could potentially reduce the compensation amount.

The court found that Rauhina was responsible for the physical injuries sustained by Hines, including the fractured ankle, abrasions, and bruising. While acknowledging the impact of a previous assault on Hines's psychological condition, the court determined that the adjustment disorder diagnosed by the psychologist was a direct result of Rauhina's actions. The court concluded that the fractured ankle was severe enough to warrant compensation under the Act. The court ordered Rauhina to pay Hines $16,500 in compensation, taking into account the contributions of other factors to Hines's injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $16,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)

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:	Hines v Rauhina [2010] QDC 299
PARTIES:	STEVEN HINES (Applicant) v PETER DOUGLAS RAUHINA (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3376/09
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 August 2010
DELIVERED AT:	District Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 June, 16 and 30 July 2010
JUDGE:	Irwin DCJ
ORDER:	*Order the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $16,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act* 1995 (Qld)**
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondent convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant suffered physical and psychological injuries as a result of the offence – assessment of compensation CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondent convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where the applicant suffered physical injuries including a fractured left ankle, abrasions and bruising as a result of the offence – whether the injury to the ankle was caused by the respondent – whether the fractured ankle could be assessed as severe with reference to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) – assessment of compensation CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where respondent convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm – where applicant suffered psychological injuries as a result of the offence – where psychologist and psychiatrist found that the applicant suffered from an adjustment disorder – where psychologist found the applicant suffered from an alcohol abuse disorder – where the assessment of whole person assessment was reduced to take into account the effect of an assault on the applicant to which the respondent was not a party – contribution – assessment of compensation – whether compensation should be reduced Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld) Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), ss 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, Schedule 1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 110(c) Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 167 Herron v Herron [2009] QDC 419, considered Hill v Dizo [2010] QDC 71, applied JMRoboSRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147, applied R v Bennett, ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 295, applied R v Chong, ex parte Chong [2001] Qd R 301, applied R v Kazakoff,ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320, cited R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe [1995]…