Hockley v Sowden - [2000] QCA 9

[HOCKLEY v SOWDEN]

[2000] QCA 9

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA

Appeal No 10317 of 1999

MICHAEL HOCKLEY Appellant (Applicant)

and

JEFFREY WILLIAM SOWDEN Respondent (Respondent)

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/02/2000

JUDGMENT

THOMAS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision in the District Court which awarded the applicant $5,625 by way of criminal compensation. It is alleged that the award is inadequate. The amount involved is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 118, subsection 2, of The District Courts Act 1967. In order to bring an appeal the applicant requires the leave of this Court under section 118, subsection 3.

The proceedings stem from an incident on 28 December 1995 when the respondent assaulted the applicant. This resulted in his conviction of common assault on 29 July 1997. He was released upon a recognisance of $7,500 on condition that he be of good behaviour and appear for conviction and sentence if called on at any time during the following three years. No conviction was recorded.

The applicant delayed in seeing a solicitor in relation to criminal compensation and the present claim was not brought before the Court until 2 November 1999. No physical injury was inflicted upon the applicant. His claim is based entirely upon a stress disorder following the incident.

The proceedings were determined under The Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The remedy conferred by this Act is in addition to any remedy under common law (section 22). Provision is made for ex gratia payments to be made by the State in respect of any amounts awarded. The amount to be awarded is governed by various provisions in the Act. It is assessed upon principles different from those of the common law. Indeed, under s 22(3),

"Compensation provided to an application under this part is intended to help the application and is not intended to reflect the compensation to which the applicant may be entitled under common law or otherwise."

Furthermore, under s 22(4) the maximum amount of compensation provided under this part is reserved for the most serious cases and the amounts provided in other cases are intended to be scaled according to their seriousness.

Under s 25(8), it is expressly stated that a decision on the amount that should be ordered does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries. Such proceedings are civil and are to be decided on the balance of probabilities (ss 30(1) and 30(2)). The rules of evidence do not apply and the Court may receive information in any form it considers appropriate (s 30(3)).
For example the transcript of proceedings on sentence may be received as it was in the present case. It contains factual statements from both sides of the Bar table including the respondent's version of the incident.

The amount to be awarded is governed inter alia by section 25. I quote subsections 1 and 2:

"(1)In making a compensation order, the Court is limited to…

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 Hockley v Sowden

Details

AGLC: Hockley v Sowden [2000] QCA 9
Case: [2000] QCA 9
Decision Date: 03/02/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of Queensland, Hockley v Sowden involves an appeal against a District Court decision that awarded the applicant $5,625 in criminal compensation for an assault by the respondent. The applicant contends that the award is inadequate. The Queensland Court of Appeal considered the legal issues surrounding the application for leave to appeal the District Court's decision. The appeal hinges on whether the District Court's assessment of the appropriate compensation amount was correct, particularly regarding the classification of the applicant's injury as moderate rather than severe nervous shock and the extent to which the applicant's behavior contributed to the incident.

The Court of Appeal examined the statutory framework governing criminal compensation under The Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, which provides for ex gratia payments by the State and establishes a compensation scheme. The Court noted that the assessment of compensation under this Act differs from common law principles, focusing on the applicant's need for assistance rather than reflecting potential common law damages. The appeal court scrutinized the District Court's reasoning, particularly the application of section 25(7) of the Act, which mandates consideration of the applicant's contributory behavior in determining the compensation amount. The Court found that the District Court's assessment of the injury as moderate nervous shock and its consideration of the applicant's behavior were supported by the evidence and did not warrant an appeal. The Court concluded that the District Court's decision was within its discretion and did not present any ambiguity or perceived difficulty in the application of the statutory provisions.

The Court of Appeal, therefore, dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The unanimous decision was that the appeal did not raise any specific questions of law or present an unjust result that warranted intervention by the higher court. Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $900.

Orders