DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
ISJB v WJG [2005] QDC 430
PARTIES:
ISB
Applicant
v
WJG
Respondent
FILE NO/S:
BD2452/05
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
21 December 2005
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
2 December 2005
JUDGE:
McGill DCJ
ORDER:
Order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $40,000 compensation in respect of the injury suffered by her as a result of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court in Ipswich on 6 September 2004.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – mental or nervous shock – course of conduct – offences straddle 1 July 1984 – amended provisions apply – assessment
Criminal Code ss.663A, 663B
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s.20(2)(c)
Chong v Chong [2001] 2 Qd R 301 – followed.
Director of Public Works v Ho Po Sang [1961] AC 901 – followed.
Esber v the Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 430 – distinguished.
HW v LO [2001] 2 Qd R 415 – distinguished.
Holt v Boughton (Helman CJDC, 13 August 1993, unreported) – not followed.
Kentlee Pty Ltd v PrinceConsort Pty Ltd [1998] 1 Qd R 162 – considered.
MAJ v. KM [2000] QCA 410 – applied.
M v K (D110\00, McGill DCJ, 17 April 2000, unreported) – cited.
McClintock v Jones [1996] 1 Qd R 524 – applied.
P v B [2004] QDC 149 – not followed.
Robertson v Smith [1974] Tas R 50 – considered.
Sofi v Wollondilly Shire Council [1975] 2 NSWLR 614 – cited.
SAM v SAM [2000] QDC 312; [2001] QCA 12 – applied.COUNSEL:
M. Horvath on behalf of the applicant
A.P. Hodgson (solicitor) on behalf of the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Chris Wlodarczyk and Co for the applicant
A.P. Hodgson and Associates for the respondent
This is an application for compensation under chapter 65A of the Criminal Code. On 6 September 2004 the respondent was convicted by a jury of five counts of indecently dealing with the applicant, a girl under 14 years. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The applicant alleges that as a result of the commission of these offences she suffered mental or nervous shock.
Background
All the offences were committed in the mid 1980’s. The indictment alleged that the first was committed on a date unknown between 22 January and 2 November 1984, that the second and third were committed on a date unknown between 1 November 1984 and 13 July 1985, the fourth between 1 November 1984 and 1 July 1986, and the fifth between 1 November 1984 and 14 July 1986. In my sentencing remarks[1], I said that the first occurred in 1984 while playing hide and seek on an upper bunk, the second and third occurred in a bedroom on the same day at a time when the applicant was six, the fourth occurred “not all that long after that” in a toilet, and the fifth “on a later occasion”, which was not otherwise identified in the sentencing remarks, when he…
Continue reading Isjb v WJG
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Isjb v WJG [2005] QDC 430
- Case
- [2005] QDC 430
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the amended provisions did apply, as the relevant injury—mental or nervous shock—occurred after the effective date of the amendments. It noted that the respondent's conduct constituted a course of conduct for the purposes of the amended provisions, and therefore the assessment of compensation should be made in accordance with these provisions. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $40,000.
The court's decision hinged on the application of the amended provisions of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) to the assessment of compensation for mental or nervous shock. The court found that the respondent's course of conduct, which straddled the effective date of the amendments, warranted the application of these provisions. The court assessed the injury suffered by the applicant and determined that the sum of $40,000 was an appropriate amount of compensation. The court ordered the respondent to pay this sum to the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $40,000 compensation in respect of the injury suffered by her as a result of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court in Ipswich on 6 September 2004.
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.