Hong v Gosbee - [2011] QDC 231

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hong v Gosbee & Anor [2011] QDC 231

PARTIES:

DAMIEN ERROL HONG
(applicant)

V

SHARMA JADE GOSBEE
(First respondent)

and

ASHLEY THOMAS SLANN
(Second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D 28/2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Mt Isa

DELIVERED ON:

2 September, 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2011

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

That the first respondent Sharma Jade Gosbee and second respondent Ashley Thomas Slann pay the applicant Damien Errol Hong the sum of $49,500.

CATCHWORDS:

Application – criminal compensation – grievous bodily harm with intent – assault occasioning bodily harm – bruising/laceration – facial disfigurement and scarring – facial fractures – head injury – loss of vision – mental or nervous shock

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss.24 and 25(7)

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s.167(2)

CASES:

Bennett v Dowd [2011] QDC 11

Michael v Christiansen [2010] QDC 157

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

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [201] 2 Qd R 436

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149

WHG v LJC [2010] QDC 395

COUNSEL:

Mr J Sheaffe (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the first and second respondents

SOLICITORS:

Dale & Fallu, solicitors for the applicant

No appearance for the first and second respondents

Introduction

The second respondent, Ashley Thomas Slann, pleaded guilty in the Mt Isa District Court before me on 14 November 2007 in respect of a count that, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to the applicant, he did grievous bodily harm to the applicant. The second respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment, suspended after serving 18 months imprisonment, with an operational period of five years.

The first respondent Sharma Jade Gosbee appeared in the Mt Isa District Court on 9 February 2009 before me and pleaded guilty (relevantly) to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company in respect of the applicant. The second respondent was sentenced to a 12 month intensive correction order.

Facts

In the early hours of 17 October 2005, the applicant and a companion, Kevin Gilmore, attended The Club, a nightclub on Isa Street, Mt Isa. At about 1.00am, the applicant and Mr Gilmore left the nightclub and waited in the car park of the nightclub for a taxi. As the applicant and Mr Gilmore were waiting for a taxi, the first and second respondents approached the applicant and Mr Gilmore and began taunting and abusing them, suggesting that the applicant and Mr Gilmore were gay, and challenging the applicant and Mr Gilmore to a fight, which the applicant and Mr Gilmore declined.

The first respondent swung a punch at Mr Gilmore which missed. The applicant and Mr Gilmore attempted to walk away but they were followed by the first and second respondents. The first respondent king hit the applicant in the jaw with a closed fist. The first respondent punched the applicant a second time on the chin, which caused 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 Hong v Gosbee

Details

AGLC: Hong v Gosbee [2011] QDC 231
Case: [2011] QDC 231
Decision Date: 2 September, 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hong v Gosbee arose before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Damien Errol Hong sought compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 for injuries sustained during an assault by Sharma Jade Gosbee and Ashley Thomas Slann. The injuries included bruising, lacerations, facial disfigurement and scarring, facial fractures, a head injury, loss of vision, and mental or nervous shock. The court had to determine whether the injuries met the criteria for compensation under the Act, specifically if they constituted grievous bodily harm with intent.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the injuries suffered by Mr Hong qualified as grievous bodily harm with intent. The court needed to consider the definitions and requirements set out in the Act and the case law to ascertain if the injuries were severe enough to warrant compensation. The court also had to examine the nature of the assault and the extent of the injuries to decide if they constituted grievous bodily harm, considering both the physical and psychological impacts.

In its decision, the court held that Mr Hong's injuries did indeed constitute grievous bodily harm with intent. The court found that the physical injuries, including the facial fractures, head injury, and loss of vision, as well as the psychological impacts such as the mental or nervous shock, were severe enough to meet the criteria for compensation. The court noted the lasting effects of the injuries on Mr Hong's physical appearance, his vision, and his mental health. Based on this, the court ordered that the respondents, Sharma Jade Gosbee and Ashley Thomas Slann, pay Mr Hong the sum of $49,500 in compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the first respondent Sharma Jade Gosbee and second respondent Ashley Thomas Slann pay the applicant Damien Errol Hong the sum of $49,500.

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:	Hong v Gosbee & Anor [2011] QDC 231
PARTIES:	DAMIEN ERROL HONG (applicant) V SHARMA JADE GOSBEE (First respondent) and ASHLEY THOMAS SLANN (Second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D 28/2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Mt Isa
DELIVERED ON:	2 September, 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	21 June 2011
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	That the first respondent Sharma Jade Gosbee and second respondent Ashley Thomas Slann pay the applicant Damien Errol Hong the sum of $49,500.
CATCHWORDS:	Application – criminal compensation – grievous bodily harm with intent – assault occasioning bodily harm – bruising/laceration – facial disfigurement and scarring – facial fractures – head injury – loss of vision – mental or nervous shock
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss.24 and 25(7) Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s.167(2)
CASES:	Bennett v Dowd [2011] QDC 11 Michael v Christiansen [2010] QDC 157 R v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320 R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [201] 2 Qd R 436 RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149 WHG v LJC [2010] QDC 395
COUNSEL:	Mr J Sheaffe (solicitor) for the applicant No appearance for the first and second respondents
SOLICITORS:	Dale & Fallu, solicitors for the applicant No appearance for the first and second respondents