JHS v SPJ - [2011] QDC 99

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JHS v SPJ [2011] QDC 99

PARTIES:

JHS
(Applicant)

V

SPJ
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

104/2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

9 June, 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2011

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent SPJ pay the applicant JHS the sum of $30,750.

CATCHWORDS:

Application – criminal compensation – administering a stupefying drug – indecent treatment – rape – adverse impacts

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss. 24 & 25(7)

Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s. 167(2)

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) s.1A

CASES:

JMR obo SRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147

Wallace & Wallace v Graveur (Unreported, 1315/2007, 8 June 2007, Rackemann DCJ)

COUNSEL:

Ms F Muirhead (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland, solicitors for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

The respondent pleaded guilty at the Beenleigh District Court on 29 May 2002 to two counts of administering a stupefying drug with intent to commit an indictable offence, five counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years, and one count of rape. The respondent was sentenced to eight years imprisonment in respect of one of the counts of administering a stupefying drug (Count 3) and the count of rape (Count 4) with lesser concurrent terms for the balance of the counts. A period of 544 days in pre-sentence custody was declared time served. It was recommended that the respondent be eligible for early release on parole after serving one third of the overall sentence.

The facts

The respondent was the applicant’s step father. Counts 1 and 2 are alleged to have occurred between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2000, and Counts 3-8 are alleged to have occurred between 5 July 2000 and 28 October 2000. When the applicant was aged 12 or 13, the family were living together at Shailer Park. The applicant’s mother found some photographs of the applicant in the respondent’s car, and as a result the offences came to light. The photographs are the subject of Counts 5, 7 and 8.

At the time the offences occurred, the applicant had been drugged and was unaware of the offences occurring. The facts placed before the court in respect of Counts 1 and 2 came from the respondent’s record of interview. The respondent stated that he had obtained instructions on how to use chloroform from an internet site. The respondent purchased chloroform from a chemist and kept it in the garage. The respondent spoke of an occasion when he administered the chloroform to the applicant when she had fallen asleep on the lounge while watching a movie. The respondent went to the garage and placed some chloroform on a sponge, returned to the lounge room, and held the sponge away from the applicant’s face so that she breathed the fumes (Count 1 – administer stupefying drug with intent to commit an indictable offence). The…

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 JHS v SPJ

Details

AGLC: JHS v SPJ [2011] QDC 99
Case: [2011] QDC 99
Decision Date: 9 June, 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JHS v SPJ involved an application for criminal injury compensation by JHS, who sought compensation from SPJ for injuries sustained due to administering a stupefying drug, indecent treatment, and rape. The matter was heard in a relevant tribunal. The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for the harm suffered at the hands of the respondent. The tribunal had to consider the severity of the harm and whether it met the threshold for compensation under the applicable legislation.

The tribunal examined the evidence presented regarding the adverse impacts on the applicant's health, psychological well-being, and overall quality of life. It found that the applicant had suffered significant harm, including physical injuries, psychological trauma, and ongoing distress. The tribunal concluded that the harm met the criteria for compensation under the relevant statutory provisions. Given the severity and nature of the harm, the tribunal awarded the applicant a total of $30,750 in compensation.

The tribunal's decision was grounded in the legislative framework governing criminal injury compensation and the specific impacts on the applicant. The tribunal recognised the profound and lasting effects of the respondent's actions and determined that the award was appropriate to compensate for the harm suffered. The tribunal ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $30,750. This amount was based on a comprehensive assessment of the applicant's losses and needs.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent SPJ pay the applicant JHS the sum of $30,750.

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:	JHS v SPJ [2011] QDC 99
PARTIES:	JHS (Applicant) V SPJ (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	104/2008
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	9 June, 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Kingaroy
HEARING DATE:	29 April 2011
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent SPJ pay the applicant JHS the sum of $30,750.
CATCHWORDS:	Application – criminal compensation – administering a stupefying drug – indecent treatment – rape – adverse impacts
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss. 24 & 25(7) Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s. 167(2) Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) s.1A
CASES:	JMR obo SRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147 Wallace & Wallace v Graveur (Unreported, 1315/2007, 8 June 2007, Rackemann DCJ)
COUNSEL:	Ms F Muirhead (solicitor) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland, solicitors for the applicant No appearance for the respondent