JG v. Clark - [2008] QDC 240

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JG v Clark [2008] QDC 240

PARTIES:

JG

(Applicant)

v

MAURICE ERNEST FITZROY CLARK

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

83 of 2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2008

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Maurice Ernest Fitzroy Clark pay the applicant JG the sum of $100,000 and costs to be assessed on a standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – MAINTAINING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP – INDECENT DEALING – child under 16 - repetitive incidents of childhood sexual, physical and emotional abuse - prolonged abuse - severe mental or nervous shock - separate courses of conduct - repetitive exposure to traumatic sexual offences - severe and chronic psychiatric disorders - post traumatic stress disorder

LEGISLATION:

Criminal CodeAct 1899 ss 663AA, 663B, 663B(1)

Criminal Code and Justices Act Amendment Act 1975

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 46(2)

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 ss5(2), 10(1)(d), 29(1)

CASES:

Chong v Chong [1999] QCA 314

R v Boughton; ex parte Holt (unreported) District Court, Helman DCJ No 124/1993 – 13 August 1993.

R v C [2000] QCA 145

R v Holder; Ex parte Jenner [1988] 2 Qd R 580

HW v LO [2001] 2 Qd R 415

R v Jones; ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524

R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (Unreported, Lee J, Sup Ct, 22 June 1995)

SAM v SAM [2001] QDC 312, [2001] QCA 12

W v W [2003] QDC 435

COUNSEL:

K Perren as town agent for Ms J Fadden, Solicitor

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland (Brisbane) for the applicant

Introduction

The respondent Maurice Ernest Clark was found guilty on 26 October 1999 after a trial at the Rockhampton District Court of the following charges:[1]
[1]Exhibit A (Certificate of Conviction), Affidavit of Mandy Albert, sworn 15 July, 2008.

Count 1. Maintain an unlawful sexual relationship between 13 August 1990 and 31 December 1994 at R and M;

Count 2. Indecent dealing of a child under sixteen with the circumstance of aggravation between 13 August 1990 and 15 August 1991 at R;

Count 3. Indecent dealing with a child under sixteen with a circumstance of aggravation between 13 August 1991 and 15 August 1994 at R;

Count 4. Indecent dealing of a child under sixteen with circumstance of aggravation between 13 August 1993 and 31 December 1994 at M;

Count 5. Indecent dealing of a child under sixteen with a circumstance of aggravation between 13 August 1993 and 31 December 1994 at M; and

Count 6. Indecent dealing of a child under sixteen with circumstance of aggravation between 13 August 1993 and 31 December 1994 at M.

The applicant, JG was the complainant in respect of each of the six counts. The respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment in respect of count 1, two years imprisonment (concurrent) in respect of count 2, and two and a half years imprisonment (concurrent…

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 JG v. Clark

Details

AGLC: JG v Clark [2008] QDC 240
Case: [2008] QDC 240
Decision Date: 26 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of JG v. Clark, the applicant, JG, sought compensation from the respondent, Maurice Ernest Fitzroy Clark, for criminal injuries sustained as a result of the respondent's repeated acts of childhood sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of compensation, considering the prolonged and severe nature of the abuse and its impact on JG's mental health. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the presiding judge was called upon to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the appropriate quantum of compensation for the injuries sustained by JG, given the repetitive and traumatic nature of the abuse. The court also had to consider whether the abuse constituted separate courses of conduct and whether the impact on JG's mental health was severe enough to warrant a significant compensation award. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the evidence presented was sufficient to support the claim for post-traumatic stress disorder and other severe psychiatric disorders resulting from the abuse.

The court found that the respondent's actions amounted to repetitive exposure to traumatic sexual offences and that the abuse had caused severe and chronic psychiatric disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder, in JG. The judge acknowledged the prolonged and severe nature of the abuse, which had a significant impact on JG's mental health. The court determined that the respondent should be held liable for the injuries sustained by JG and awarded the applicant $100,000 in compensation. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings, to be assessed on a standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Maurice Ernest Fitzroy Clark pay the applicant JG the sum of $100,000 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:	JG v Clark [2008] QDC 240
PARTIES:	JG (Applicant) v MAURICE ERNEST FITZROY CLARK (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	83 of 2008
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	26 September 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	1 September 2008
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent Maurice Ernest Fitzroy Clark pay the applicant JG the sum of $100,000 and costs to be assessed on a standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – MAINTAINING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP – INDECENT DEALING – child under 16 - repetitive incidents of childhood sexual, physical and emotional abuse - prolonged abuse - severe mental or nervous shock - separate courses of conduct - repetitive exposure to traumatic sexual offences - severe and chronic psychiatric disorders - post traumatic stress disorder
LEGISLATION:	Criminal CodeAct 1899 ss 663AA, 663B, 663B(1) Criminal Code and Justices Act Amendment Act 1975 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 46(2) Limitation of Actions Act 1974 ss5(2), 10(1)(d), 29(1)
CASES:	Chong v Chong [1999] QCA 314 R v Boughton; ex parte Holt (unreported) District Court, Helman DCJ No 124/1993 – 13 August 1993. R v C [2000] QCA 145 R v Holder; Ex parte Jenner [1988] 2 Qd R 580 HW v LO [2001] 2 Qd R 415 R v Jones; ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524 R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (Unreported, Lee J, Sup Ct, 22 June 1995) SAM v SAM [2001] QDC 312, [2001] QCA 12 W v W [2003] QDC 435
COUNSEL:	K Perren as town agent for Ms J Fadden, Solicitor No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland (Brisbane) for the applicant