DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Houghton v Knoble [2011] QDC 276
PARTIES:
BENJAMIN NICHOLAS HOUGHTON
(Applicant)v
SAM ROWAN KNOBLE
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
1762/2007
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
11 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8 November 2011
JUDGE:
Samios DCJ
ORDER:
Respondent to pay the Applicant $52,500
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law – compensation – contribution to injury – assessment of compensation
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 22(3), s 22(4), s 25(6), 25(7)
SAY v AZ; Ex-parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
Mrs Fadden appeared for Mr Houghton from the Legal Aid Office
Mr Rollason appeared for Mr Knoble from Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors
On 15 July 2002 Mr Houghton who was then 16 years of age was the victim of the offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm committed by Mr Knoble who was then 17 years of age.
On 19 June 2003 Mr Knoble pleaded guilty to committing the offence before His Honour Judge Trafford Walker and was sentenced to an intensive correction order.
This is Mr Houghton’s application for criminal compensation to be assessed for injuries he claims he suffered because of the offence.
The application is opposed.
Mr Houghton is now 25 years of age having been born on 5 July 1986 and Mr Knoble is 26 years of age having been born on 1 January 1985.
Mr Houghton claims to have suffered four discrete injuries as a result of the offence, namely:
(a) Bruising;
(b) Fractures of the right cheek bone involving the right eye socket;
(c) Nerve damage causing trigeminal neuropathic pain;
(d) Mental or nervous shock.
The application is brought pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (the Act) which was repealed by the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 which commenced on 1 December 2009.
The application is within time and can be heard under the Act.
The basis upon which Mr Knoble was sentenced was that he and Mr Houghton had at one time been friends through a mutual friend. In about January 2002 they had a falling out. According to Mr Houghton Mr Knoble told him not to call him as he heard that Mr Houghton was saying derogatory things about his sister. On the date the offence was committed Mr Knoble approached Mr Houghton and said: “Are you still saying stuff about my sister?”. Mr Houghton told him that he had not been saying anything about his sister and asked Mr Knoble to hear him out. Mr Knoble then grabbed Mr Houghton’s collar and Mr Houghton again asked Mr Knoble to hear him out. Mr Knoble continued to hang on to Mr Houghton’s collar and at that stage Mr Houghton had his back against a wall. Mr Knoble then punched Mr Houghton in the eye. The back of Mr Houghton’s head hit the wall. Mr Knoble then hit Mr Houghton again and connected somewhere above the right eye. Mr Knoble said “you deserve this” and then ran away.
Continue reading Houghton v Knoble
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Houghton v Knoble [2011] QDC 276
- Case
- [2011] QDC 276
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were the assessment of the quantum of compensation Houghton was entitled to and the determination of Knoble's contribution to the injuries. The court had to consider the severity and impact of the injuries, Houghton's loss of income, and the extent of Knoble's culpability. The court also had to address whether Knoble's actions were a significant contributing factor to Houghton's injuries, which could affect the amount of compensation awarded.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that Houghton was entitled to compensation for his injuries. The court assessed the evidence presented regarding the severity of the injuries, Houghton's medical expenses, and his loss of earning capacity. The court determined that Houghton was entitled to $52,500 in compensation. The court also found that Knoble's actions were a significant contributing factor to Houghton's injuries, but this did not impact the amount of compensation awarded. The court ordered Knoble to pay Houghton the sum of $52,500.
Orders
Orders of the court
Respondent to pay the Applicant $52,500
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.