Williams JA, Chesterman and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:
Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant was raped in her home – where the applicant was 86 years old – where s 1A Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 provides for compensation to victims of sexual offences who suffer adverse impacts – where s 1A Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 operates to the extent to which the impacts are not otherwise an injury under s 20 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 – whether all injuries sustained in sexual offence should be considered an adverse impact under the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995
STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – WORDS TO BE GIVEN THEIR LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING
[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 JI v AV
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
JI v AV [2001] QCA 510
Case
[2001] QCA 510
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of JI v AV, the applicant, an 86-year-old woman, sought compensation for the harm she suffered after being raped in her home. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the applicant sought to appeal a decision that had denied her compensation under section 1A of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of this section and whether all injuries sustained in a sexual offence should be considered adverse impacts under the regulation, thereby rendering them ineligible for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.
The court considered the statutory language and the principle of statutory interpretation that words should be given their literal and grammatical meaning. The regulation stipulates that compensation is available to the extent that the adverse impacts are not otherwise an injury under the Act. The court determined that not all injuries in a sexual offence should automatically be deemed adverse impacts under the regulation. This interpretation was consistent with the literal wording of section 1A, which implies a distinction between injuries and adverse impacts.
In light of this interpretation, the court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed as it did not support the applicant's contention that all injuries from a sexual offence should be considered adverse impacts. The court granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.