Hunt v. Anitema - [2009] QDC 78

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hunt v Anitema [2009] QDC 78

PARTIES:

LUAFULULIMA HUNT

(Applicant)

v

TEISE ANITEMA

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

23/2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

10 March 2009

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Teise Anitema pay the applicant Luafululima Hunt the sum of $ 29, 250.00

CATCHWORDS:

Application – Criminal Compensation – grievous bodily harm – bruising and lacerations – bodily scarring – mental and nervous shock.

CASES:

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436

Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337

Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 ss 22(4), 24, 25, 26

COUNSEL:

Mr S Seth (solicitor) for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Seth Solicitors for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

Introduction

The applicant Luafululima Hunt seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by her in an incident which occurred on 11 March 2006 at Kingston. This incident resulted in the respondent Teise Anitema pleading guilty to a count of grievous bodily harm before me on 28 April 2008 for which she was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with a parole release date of 28 April 2008.

Facts

The incident occurred on Saturday 11 March 2006 at Kingston. The respondent and the applicant were together with a large number of other people at a volleyball practice at the Kingston College Hall. During the course of that practice there was an altercation involving the applicant’s sister, Ms Kofe Lee, which arose because of an affair that had been taking place between Ms Lee and the husband of the respondent’s niece.

The altercation took place in the context of a Samoan community with shared ethnic and cultural background and a shared involvement in the Marsden ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Ms Kofe Lee and Ms Ah Chong (a cousin of the respondent’s niece) became involved in a fight.

After the game ended at about 4.00pm Ms Lee left the hall to go to her car and Ms Ah Chong followed Ms Lee out and a fist fight ensued. Some witnesses stated that Ms Ah Chong hit Ms Lee with a tree branch and felled her to the ground. The applicant pulled Ms Ah Chong away from Ms Lee. At this stage Ms Ah Chong was dominating the fight. Ms Lee then got hold of the tree branch and started to chase Ms Ah Chong with it. The respondent’s older sister, Mrs Pepe Skelton, became involved in trying to separate the fight. The applicant pushed Mrs Skelton away and she fell to the ground. The respondent saw Mrs Skelton fall to the ground and walked over to the applicant and pushed her with both hands in the region of her upper chest and neck. Almost immediately afterwards, a large amount of blood came from…

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 Hunt v. Anitema

Details

AGLC: Hunt v Anitema [2009] QDC 78
Case: [2009] QDC 78
Decision Date: 20 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luafululima Hunt applied to the Court for criminal injury compensation following an incident where Teise Anitema assaulted him, causing significant physical and psychological harm. The application was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, where the primary concern was the quantum of compensation to be awarded. The nature of the dispute revolved around determining the appropriate amount of compensation for the grievous bodily harm suffered by Hunt, including physical injuries such as bruising and lacerations, permanent scarring, and mental trauma.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the evaluation of the extent of Hunt’s injuries, the appropriate compensation for the physical scars and the psychological impact, and the consideration of the guidelines and precedents for assessing criminal injury compensation in Victoria. The court had to balance these factors to ensure that the compensation awarded was fair and reflective of the harm endured by Hunt.

In delivering the decision, the court meticulously assessed the evidence presented regarding Hunt’s injuries and their impact on his life. The court recognised the severity of the physical trauma, including the permanent scarring and the psychological distress evidenced by the medical reports and testimonies. After considering the relevant statutory guidelines and precedents, the court concluded that the appropriate compensation for the grievous bodily harm, both physical and psychological, was $29,250.00. The court ordered that this sum be paid to Hunt by Anitema.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Teise Anitema pay the applicant Luafululima Hunt the sum of $ 29, 250.00

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:	Hunt v Anitema [2009] QDC 78
PARTIES:	LUAFULULIMA HUNT (Applicant) v TEISE ANITEMA (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	23/2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	20 March 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	10 March 2009
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent Teise Anitema pay the applicant Luafululima Hunt the sum of $ 29, 250.00
CATCHWORDS:	Application – Criminal Compensation – grievous bodily harm – bruising and lacerations – bodily scarring – mental and nervous shock.
CASES:	R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436 Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337 Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 ss 22(4), 24, 25, 26
COUNSEL:	Mr S Seth (solicitor) for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Seth Solicitors for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.