SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: HW v LO [2000] QCA 377 PARTIES: HW
(applicant/applicant)
v
LO
(respondent/respondent)FILE NO/S: Appeal No 3016 of 2000
DC No 115 of 2000DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil) ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON: 15 September 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 22 May 2000 JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.ORDER: 1. Application for leave to appeal, and the appeal allowed with costs to be assessed.
2. Order made in the District Court on 6 March 2000 set aside and the matter remitted to the District Court for further hearing and determination in accordance with these reasons.
3. Respondent granted an indemnity certificate under s 15 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
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 – application for criminal compensation – respondent convicted of five counts of rape and one count of indecent dealing with circumstances of aggravation committed over six year period – whether offences arose out of “one course of conduct” under s 663B Criminal Code – consideration of correct maximum “prescribed amount” – where material relied on by the applicant fails to address the individual or cumulative consequences of each offence – where material relied on by the applicant not in admissible form - where material relied on by the applicant does not sufficiently identify date of offence for the purpose of calculation of compensation.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – APPEAL COSTS FUND – where indemnity certificate granted under Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – IN GENERAL AND RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – jurisdictional limit – whether leave is necessary to appeal from a District Court order for criminal compensation
Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, s 15, s 16
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, s 26(3), s 46
Criminal Code, s 663A, s 663AA, s 663B
Criminal Code Amendment Act 1984
Criminal Code and Justices Act Amendment Act 1975
District Court Act 1967, s 118(2)Aetna Cas and Sur Co v Industrial Commission 127 Colo 225, referred to
Chong v Chong [1999] QCA 314; Appeal No 11658 of 1998, 13 August 1999, distinguished.
Dyer v Dyer 166 PaSuper 520, referred to
Gordon v R (1982) 41 ALR 64, referred to
Maher v Woodman & Anor [1999] QCA 233; Appeal No 6654 of 1998, 22 June 1999, applied
McClintock v Jones (1995) 79 A CrimR 238, referred to
Ozcam as next friend of Tamcelik v Tamcelik Appeal No 269 of 1995, 18 October 1996
Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd (1985) 62 ALR 85, referred…
Continue reading HW v LO
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- HW v LO [2000] QCA 377
- Case
- [2000] QCA 377
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the multiple offences for which LO was convicted arose out of a single course of conduct, which would impact the calculation of the maximum compensation payable under section 663B of the Criminal Code. The court also considered whether the material submitted by HW was sufficient to identify the individual or cumulative consequences of the offences and if it was in the correct form to be considered. Additionally, the court needed to determine the correct prescribed amount for the compensation and whether the evidence provided by HW sufficiently identified the dates of the offences to enable accurate compensation calculations.
The court found that the material provided by HW did not adequately address the individual or cumulative consequences of the offences, nor was it in the correct form for admissibility. The court also determined that the evidence did not sufficiently identify the dates of the offences necessary for the calculation of compensation. Consequently, the court held that the order for criminal compensation made by the District Court was flawed and needed to be set aside. The matter was remitted back to the District Court for a further hearing and determination in line with the court's reasons. Furthermore, the respondent was granted an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, ensuring that the appeal costs would be covered.
The final orders of the court were to allow the application for leave to appeal and to grant the appeal with costs to be assessed. The order made by the District Court on 6 March 2000 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the District Court for further proceedings. Additionally, an indemnity certificate was granted to the respondent under section 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal, and the appeal allowed with costs to be assessed.
2. Order made in the District Court on 6 March 2000 set aside and the matter remitted to the District Court for further hearing and determination in accordance with these reasons.
3. Respondent granted an indemnity certificate under s 15 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
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.