Jenkins v Temple - [2010] QDC 404

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Jenkins v Temple [2010] QDC 404
PARTIES: ALFRED CONRAD JENKINS
(Applicant)
v
FANNY ROSE TEMPLE
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 244 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON: 29 October 2010
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE: 7 October 2010
JUDGE: Everson DCJ
ORDER: That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of
$7,500.00
CATCHWORDS: Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological
injuries
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995
R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS: ILS QLD Limited for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).
The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 23 November 2006, namely unlawful wounding.
Facts
The applicant and the respondent were drinking alcohol together at Centennial Park, Cairns on 6 July 2006. At about 1.00 pm the respondent struck the applicant to the head with a bottle and proceeded to stab him with a knife in the region of his left knee (“the incident”).
Injuries
The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:

• A 4 cm laceration on the lateral aspect of his left knee

The relevant law

COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation”.
Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes J described the process in the following terms:
“Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.”
[1] [2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310
Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes:

• Item 24 Gunshot/stab wounds (minor) … 6% - 10%

Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”. Furthermore, the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount…

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 Jenkins v Temple

Details

AGLC: Jenkins v Temple [2010] QDC 404
Case: [2010] QDC 404
Decision Date: 29/10/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jenkins v Temple involved an application for criminal compensation for physical and psychological injuries suffered by the applicant, Jenkins, as a result of a personal offence committed by the respondent, Temple. The injuries arose from an incident in which Temple struck Jenkins with a bottle and stabbed him with a knife. Jenkins suffered a superficial laceration on his left knee that later became infected. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate compensation amount Jenkins was entitled to under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA) and whether the compensation should account for both the physical and psychological injuries Jenkins sustained.

The court examined the statutory scheme for compensation under COVA, noting that compensation may be awarded for injuries specified in the Compensation Table in Schedule 1 of the Act. The court considered that the laceration Jenkins sustained was not serious enough to warrant a high level of compensation but did recognise the psychological impact of the attack. The court calculated the compensation by comparing Jenkins' injuries to those listed in the Compensation Table, taking into account the maximum compensation amount of $75,000 and the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995. The court also noted that Jenkins' behaviour did not contribute to the injury, which was relevant under section 25 of COVA.

Ultimately, the court awarded Jenkins $7,500.00 in compensation, reflecting the seriousness of his injuries and the statutory scheme's guidelines. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and a comparison of Jenkins' injuries to those listed in the Compensation Table, ensuring the compensation was appropriate and within the legal framework provided by COVA.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of

$7,500.00

Background

Background to the litigation

The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 23 November 2006, namely unlawful wounding. Facts The applicant and the respondent were drinking alcohol together at Centennial Park, Cairns on 6 July 2006. At about 1.00 pm the respondent struck the applicant to the head with a bottle and proceeded to stab him with a knife in the region of his left knee (“the incident”). Injuries The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident: COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation”. Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes J described the process in the following terms: “Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.” [1] [2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310 Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes: Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”. Furthermore, the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount of compensation provided for is reserved for the most serious cases, with the amounts provided in other cases intended to be scaled accordingly.[2] If an injury is not specifically listed in the Compensation Table the court must decide the amount of compensation by comparing the injury or injuries to injuries listed in the Compensation Table and having regard to the amounts that may be ordered to be paid for these injuries.[3] [2] s 25(8) referring to s 22(4) [3] s 25(6) The assessment I have been provided with a statement of Dr Collins, orthopaedic registrar at the Cairns Base Hospital dated 22 August 2006, which records that the applicant presented to the Accident and Emergency Department on 6 July 2006 with a 4 cm laceration on the lateral aspect of his left knee. This was explored in theatre and found to be superficial. It did not involve his knee joint. It is recorded that following his discharge the next day, the applicant required readmission on 27 July 2006 and further treatment after the wound became infected.

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:	Jenkins v Temple [2010] QDC 404
PARTIES:	ALFRED CONRAD JENKINS (Applicant) v FANNY ROSE TEMPLE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	244 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT:	District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	7 October 2010
JUDGE:	Everson DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $7,500.00
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995
R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	ILS QLD Limited for the applicant No appearance for the respondent