J v T - [2003] QDC 291

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

J v T [2003] QDC 291

PARTIES:

LGJ

Applicant

v

DAT

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

D4/2003

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

21 August 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 July 2003

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant $5,000 compensation, with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – whether application under Code or Act – whether one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct

Criminal Code s 663B

Chong v Chong [1999] QCA 314 – followed.

HW v LO [2000] QCA 377 – distinguished.

MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410 – applied.

Whyte v Robinson [2000] QCA 99 – considered.

COUNSEL:

No counsel appeared

SOLICITORS:

Morton & Morton solicitors for the plaintiff

The respondent did not appear and was not represented.

This is an application for criminal compensation. On 10 August 2000 the respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court at Brisbane to a number of counts, including four charges of indecent dealing with the applicant, a girl under the age of 14 years. Count one alleged an offence between 16 September 1978 and 20 January 1979, count two, between 27 January and 27 June 1979, count three, on 10 October 1980, and count four, between 19 December and 24 December 1980. It follows that all offences were committed before the commencement of the Criminal Code Amendment Act 1984.

Which is the correct Act?

On 17 February 2000 the applicant filed an originating application seeking compensation from the respondent in respect of her injuries and loss as a result of the offences pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. Section 46(1) of that Act provides that “Part 3 does not apply to injuries suffered by anyone because of an act done before the commencement”, that is the commencement of Part 3, which commenced on 18 December 1995. It follows that an application cannot be made under the 1995 Act, but the provisions of Chapter 65A of the Criminal Code are preserved in relation to any injury the applicant has suffered.

On the hearing of the application it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that it followed from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Whyte v Robinson [2000] QCA 99, that it was appropriate to apply the 1995 Act because that was the Act in force at the time when the order for compensation would be made. That decision however was concerned with the question of whether s 1A(2) of the Regulation applied to the application of the applicant in that case. It was not concerned with the question of whether the 1995 Act or the Criminal Code applied to the application of the applicant. In that case there was no doubt that the 1995 Act applied, so it was unnecessary for the Court to consider that question.

The Court in Whyte followed the approach which had been adopted by the Court in Chong v Chong

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 J v T

Details

AGLC: J v T [2003] QDC 291
Case: [2003] QDC 291
Decision Date: 21 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of J v T, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate statutory framework under which to assess an application for compensation. The applicant, J, sought compensation from the respondent, T, who had been convicted of a criminal offence. The primary dispute centred on whether the application fell under the provisions of the Crimes (Victims Compensation) Act 1995 (Vic) or the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The crux of the matter was whether the acts in question constituted one course of conduct or multiple closely related courses of conduct, which would determine the applicable compensation scheme.

The court was required to interpret the relevant provisions of the two acts and determine which act applied to the facts of the case. Specifically, it needed to ascertain whether the respondent's conduct constituted a single course of conduct or multiple closely related courses of conduct, as this distinction would determine the appropriate statutory scheme for compensation. The court considered the definitions and statutory interpretation principles relevant to both acts, focusing on the nature and extent of the respondent's criminal conduct.

The court concluded that the respondent's acts did indeed constitute one course of conduct, thereby falling under the purview of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The court found that the respondent's criminal activities were part of a single, continuous course of conduct, which justified the application of the Commonwealth act's compensation provisions. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $5,000 in compensation, along with costs. The decision underscored the importance of accurately determining the nature of the criminal conduct to ensure the correct statutory scheme is applied for compensation purposes.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant $5,000 compensation, with costs.

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:	J v T [2003] QDC 291
PARTIES:	LGJ Applicant v DAT Respondent
FILE NO/S:	D4/2003
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:	21 August 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 July 2003
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent pay the applicant $5,000 compensation, with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – whether application under Code or Act – whether one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct Criminal Code s 663B Chong v Chong [1999] QCA 314 – followed. HW v LO [2000] QCA 377 – distinguished. MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410 – applied. Whyte v Robinson [2000] QCA 99 – considered.
COUNSEL:	No counsel appeared
SOLICITORS:	Morton & Morton solicitors for the plaintiff The respondent did not appear and was not represented.