Hohn v King

Case [2004] QCA 254

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hohn v King [2004] QCA 254

PARTIES:

BARRY WILLIAM HOHN
(applicant/applicant)
v
SCOTT PHILLIP KING
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3738 of 2004
DC No 20 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court

ORDERS:

1. Grant leave to appeal
2. Allow the appeal
3. Order that compensation in the sum of $50,500.00 be paid to the applicant by the respondent such sum to be paid to The Public Trustee as administrator for Barry William Hohn for all financial matters in accordance with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000
4. Order the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application and appeal to be assessed

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 – where applicant
suffered grievous bodily harm caused by respondent – where injuries were inflicted during drug transaction – where applicant was awarded criminal compensation for injuries – where assessment was reduced by one third to reflect contribution – whether compensation assessment was inadequate – whether reduction was excessive – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 19, s 21, s 22, s 23, s 25

Buckland v Estate of Kennedy [2000] QSC 337; SC No 2488 of 2000, 2 October 2000, referred to
Crosbie v Lawrence [2002] QSC 217; SC No 3439 of 2002, 5 August 2002, referred to
Gala v Preston (1991) 172 CLR 243, considered
Grahame v Dean [2001] QSC 420; SC No 555 of 2001, 9 November 2001, referred to
 Jones v Coolwell [2001] QSC 130; SC No 1389 of 2001, 4 May 2001, referred to
R v Browne; ex parte Nairn [2001] QSC 44; SC No 8502 of 1999, 27 February 2001, referred to
R v Fergus [1996] QCA 151; CA No 499 of 1995, 24 May 1996, cited
R v King [2001] QCA 525; CA No 181 of 2001, 23 November 2001, cited
Re Guppy [1998] QSC 256; SC No 6086 of 1997, 13 November 1998, referred to
Re Jackson [1998] QSC 204; SC No 7337 of 1998, 29 September 1998, considered
South Australia v Abdel-Ghani (1997) 93 A Crim R 259, considered
South Australia v Nguyen & Tran (1991) 58 A Crim R 261, considered
Street v Fitzgerald; Street v Shield [2002] QSC 235; SC No 2901 of 2001 and SC No 3298 of 2002, 16 August 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

D R Davies for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
J A Fraser for the Attorney-General (Qld) as amicus curiae

SOLICITORS:

Wonderley & Hall for the applicant
No appearance for…

Continue reading Hohn v King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hohn v King [2004] QCA 254
Case
[2004] QCA 254
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hohn v King, the applicant, Barry William Hohn, sought to appeal the amount of compensation awarded to him for grievous bodily harm caused by the respondent, Mark King. The incident occurred during a drug transaction between the two parties. Hohn had been awarded criminal compensation for his injuries, but the assessment was reduced by one third to reflect his contribution to the events that led to his injuries. Hohn contended that the reduction was excessive and that the compensation assessment was inadequate.

The court had to determine whether the compensation assessment was appropriate, and if the reduction was excessive. It was necessary to consider the circumstances of the case, including the extent of Hohn's contribution to the events leading to his injuries, and the nature and extent of his injuries. The court also had to consider the principles of fairness and proportionality in determining the appropriate amount of compensation.

The court found that the compensation assessment was inadequate and that the reduction was excessive. The court noted that Hohn's contribution to the events leading to his injuries was not significant, and that his injuries were severe and long-lasting. The court also found that the reduction in compensation did not reflect the true extent of Hohn's injuries and contribution to the events leading to his injuries. The court concluded that the compensation assessment was unfair and disproportionate, and that the reduction was excessive.

Accordingly, the court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and ordered that compensation in the sum of $50,500.00 be paid to the applicant by the respondent. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application and appeal to be assessed. The compensation was to be paid to The Public Trustee as administrator for Barry William Hohn for all financial matters in accordance with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal

2. Allow the appeal

3. Order that compensation in the sum of $50,500.00 be paid to the applicant by the respondent such sum to be paid to The Public Trustee as administrator for Barry William Hohn for all financial matters in accordance with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000

4. Order the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application and appeal to be assessed

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.