Jefferis v Bickerton and Wallace - [2006] QCA 282

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jefferis v Bickerton and Wallace [2006] QCA 282

PARTIES:

JOHN OWEN JEFFERIS
(applicant/applicant)
v
MATTHEW JAMES BICKERTON
(first respondent/first respondent)
JOHNATHON GERALD WALLACE
(second respondent/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2740 of 2006
DC No 84 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 May 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, White and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, White and Philippides JJ concurring as to the order made, Jerrard JA dissenting

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused

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 – whether trial judge erred in construing and applying the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) in assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant under the Act for injuries suffered by him by reason of an offence of grievous bodily harm committed on him by the respondents – whether the overall award of compensation was manifestly inadequate

District Court of Queensland Act1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 21, s 25

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, cited
R v Jones; ex parte Zaicov [2002] 2 Qd R 303; [2001] QCA
442; CA No 9427 of 2000, 23 October 2001, considered
Riddle v Coffey [2002] QCA 337; Appeal No 265 of 2002, 6 September 2002, cited
SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12; Appeal No 10239 of 2000, 2 February 2001, considered

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant/applicant
J Fenton for the respondents (amicus curiae)

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/applicant
Department of Justice and Attorney-General for the respondents (amicus curiae)

JERRARD JA: This proceeding is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act1967 (Qld) from a decision of that court given on 3 March 2006. In that decision a learned District Court judge made orders, pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 (Qld) (“the COVA”), that the respondents Matthew Bickerton and Jonathon Wallace pay Mr Jefferis between them a total of $44,250 as compensation for injuries he had suffered and which were caused by their having unlawfully caused him grievous bodily harm on 19 May 2004. On this application Mr Hamlyn-Harris contended for Mr Jefferis that the learned District Court judge erred in not awarding Mr Jefferis a separate amount for compensation for chest and heart problems he had suffered, said to be caused by that offence; and argued that in the result the learned judge had awarded a manifestly inadequate sum in compensation for the combined severity of all Mr Jefferis’ injuries and complications resulting from an unlawful attack upon…

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 Jefferis v Bickerton and Wallace

Details

AGLC: Jefferis v Bickerton and Wallace [2006] QCA 282
Case: [2006] QCA 282
Decision Date: 4 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jefferis v Bickerton and Wallace was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant, Jefferis, sought to appeal the amount of compensation awarded to him under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). Jefferis claimed that the trial judge had erred in assessing the compensation payable for grievous bodily harm inflicted by the respondents, Bickerton and Wallace. Jefferis argued that the compensation awarded was manifestly inadequate.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had misconstrued and misapplied the relevant statutory provisions in determining the compensation amount. The court needed to assess whether the trial judge's approach to awarding compensation was flawed and if the resulting amount was manifestly inadequate. The court also considered the statutory framework and any relevant case law on the interpretation and application of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld).

The court examined the trial judge's assessment of the compensation under the statutory provisions, considering the nature and extent of Jefferis' injuries, the impact on his life, and the principles of fairness and proportionality. The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the statutory criteria and had provided adequate reasons for the compensation amount awarded. The court concluded that the compensation was not manifestly inadequate, as it had appropriately balanced the relevant factors under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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:	Jefferis v Bickerton and Wallace [2006] QCA 282
PARTIES:	JOHN OWEN JEFFERIS (applicant/applicant) v MATTHEW JAMES BICKERTON (first respondent/first respondent) JOHNATHON GERALD WALLACE (second respondent/second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 2740 of 2006 DC No 84 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 May 2006
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, White and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, White and Philippides JJ concurring as to the order made, Jerrard JA dissenting
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused
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 – whether trial judge erred in construing and applying the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) in assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant under the Act for injuries suffered by him by reason of an offence of grievous bodily harm committed on him by the respondents – whether the overall award of compensation was manifestly inadequate District Court of Queensland Act1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 21, s 25 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, cited R v Jones; ex parte Zaicov [2002] 2 Qd R 303; [2001] QCA 442; CA No 9427 of 2000, 23 October 2001, considered Riddle v Coffey [2002] QCA 337; Appeal No 265 of 2002, 6 September 2002, cited SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12; Appeal No 10239 of 2000, 2 February 2001, considered
COUNSEL:	S J Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant/applicant J Fenton for the respondents (amicus curiae)
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/applicant Department of Justice and Attorney-General for the respondents (amicus curiae)