JFD v ARJ - [2010] QDC 478

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JFD v ARJ [2010] QDC 478

PARTIES:

JFD

(Applicant)

v

ARJ

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

131/2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

1 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

21 September 2010

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

THE RESPONDENT ARJ PAY THE APPLICANT JFD THE SUM OF $10,000 AND COSTS TO BE ASSESSED ON A STANDARD BASIS.

CATCHWORDS:

Application – criminal compensation – indecent treatment of a child – mental or nervous shock

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code(Qld) 1899 ch. 65A, s. 663B.
Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 s. 46.
Victims of Crime Assistance Act(Qld) 2009 s. 167(2).
Criminal Code Amendment Act (Qld)1984.

CASES:

Thompson v Dowley [2007] QDC 132.
KSV v RWB [2007] QDC 233.
R v Tiltman; ex-parte Dawe (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, 22 June 1995, Lee J).
SAM v SAM (Unreported, District Court, 27 October 2000, Robertson DCJ).
SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12.

COUNSEL:

J Fadden (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

The respondent, ARJ, pleaded guilty before me in the Beenleigh District Court on 6 April 2009 to two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12, in respect of the applicant JFD. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and three years probation (concurrent in respect of each count) and ordered to undertake a sexual offenders’ treatment programme in the community upon release.[1]
[1]Exhibit A (Certificate of Indictment) Affidavit of Mandy Albert sworn 23 July 2010.

Facts

The applicant, then aged 10, was living … with the applicant’s sister and the respondent (then the partner of the applicant’s sister). Four of the applicant’s brothers also resided at the house as well as the applicant’s niece. While the other children slept in the bedrooms, the applicant slept in the lounge. The applicant recalls at about 6.00 am one morning (between 10 November 1975 and 12 November 1976) when others in the house were still asleep and she was lying face down on the couch, the respondent came out to the lounge. The applicant was wearing a nightie and underpants. The respondent sat down beside her on the couch. The respondent did not say anything as she was still half asleep. The respondent felt the applicant touch her on her underpants, then pull them to one side. The applicant rolled over and pretended she was waking up, but the respondent kept touching her. The applicant felt the respondent insert his fingers in her vagina. The respondent stopped and removed his fingers. The respondent then used his mouth to touch her also on the vagina. The respondent stopped his actions when he and the applicant heard noises coming from one of the bedrooms. The applicant opened her eyes. Her one year old niece came up to her and the respondent was still seated on the couch. The applicant reported these…

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 JFD v ARJ

Details

AGLC: JFD v ARJ [2010] QDC 478
Case: [2010] QDC 478
Decision Date: 1 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JFD v ARJ involved an application for criminal compensation brought by the applicant, JFD, against the respondent, ARJ. The applicant sought compensation for the mental or nervous shock resulting from the respondent’s conviction for indecent treatment of a child. The case was heard in the relevant court, which found the applicant’s application to be substantiated.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had suffered recognisable psychiatric illness as a direct result of the respondent’s criminal conduct, and whether this illness was severe enough to warrant compensation. The court had to examine the evidence presented regarding the applicant's mental state and the nature of the injury suffered, in order to determine if the criteria for compensation under the applicable legislation were met. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriate quantum of compensation, if any, that should be awarded to the applicant.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence provided, including expert psychiatric assessments and personal testimony. It found that the applicant had indeed suffered recognisable psychiatric illness as a direct result of the respondent's actions. The court accepted that the severity of the illness met the threshold for compensation under the applicable laws. Consequently, the court awarded the applicant $10,000 in compensation, along with an order for the respondent to pay costs to be assessed on a standard basis. This decision underscored the importance of recognising the psychological impact of criminal conduct and the legal avenues available for those affected.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE RESPONDENT ARJ PAY THE APPLICANT JFD THE SUM OF $10,000 AND COSTS TO BE ASSESSED ON A STANDARD BASIS.

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:	JFD v ARJ [2010] QDC 478
PARTIES:	JFD (Applicant) v ARJ (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	131/2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	1 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	21 September 2010
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	THE RESPONDENT ARJ PAY THE APPLICANT JFD THE SUM OF $10,000 AND COSTS TO BE ASSESSED ON A STANDARD BASIS.
CATCHWORDS:	Application – criminal compensation – indecent treatment of a child – mental or nervous shock
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code(Qld) 1899 ch. 65A, s. 663B. Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 s. 46. Victims of Crime Assistance Act(Qld) 2009 s. 167(2). Criminal Code Amendment Act (Qld)1984.
CASES:	Thompson v Dowley [2007] QDC 132. KSV v RWB [2007] QDC 233. R v Tiltman; ex-parte Dawe (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, 22 June 1995, Lee J). SAM v SAM (Unreported, District Court, 27 October 2000, Robertson DCJ). SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12.
COUNSEL:	J Fadden (solicitor) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant No appearance for the respondent