Johanssen v Burke Summary

COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 191
McPHERSON JA DEMACK J HELMAN J

CA No 3521 of 1998
RUTH YVONNE JOHANSSEN Appellant/Applicant
and

DARCY ROBERT BURKE Respondent/Respondent

BRISBANE
..DATE 15/06/98
150698 T13/TW12 M/T COA140/98
McPHERSON JA: This is an application for leave to appeal
from a judgment in the District Court awarding criminal
compensation for injuries arising out of two offences, but
in particular, the offence of rape.

It has been put to us by Mr Kimmins on behalf of the complainant, who is the applicant for leave, that Judge Boulton in the Court below adopted an interpretation of the compensation provision in the Criminal Code which is at odds with a decision of the Chief Justice, as he is now, in the case of Sarah Jane Harris (No 315 of 1995, 18 September 1995).

I think it is not necessary to go further than to say that
there appear to be some decisions that take a different view
of the way in which that section in the Code should be
construed, and the District Court Judges have been faced
with the difficulty of choosing between those decisions and
that of the Chief Justice.

In the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the case is one in which it would be appropriate to have the Court of Appeal rule on the matter for the future guidance of courts faced with this problem, as they are in an increasingly large number of instances.

I would therefore grant leave to appeal.

DEMACK J: I agree.

HELMAN J: I agree.

150698 T13/TW12 M/T COA140/98
McPHERSON JA: The order is that leave to appeal is granted
and that the costs of and incidental to this application

will form part of the costs of the appeal.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal, Ruth Yvonne Johannsen has applied for leave to appeal against a judgment of the District Court, which awarded criminal compensation for injuries stemming from two offences, with particular emphasis on the offence of rape. The respondent in this matter is Darcy Robert Burke. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court had correctly interpreted the compensation provision in the Criminal Code. The applicant argued that the District Court's interpretation was inconsistent with a previous decision of the Chief Justice in the case of Sarah Jane Harris. The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether there was a discernible divergence in the interpretation of the compensation provision and whether it was appropriate to grant leave to appeal for the purpose of providing future guidance to lower courts.

The Court of Appeal, comprising McPherson JA, Demack J, and Helman J, unanimously agreed that the case warranted an appeal. McPherson JA highlighted the existence of differing judicial interpretations regarding the compensation provision, creating a challenge for District Court judges in choosing between conflicting decisions. The Court concluded that the case was suitable for the Court of Appeal to rule on, to offer guidance to lower courts increasingly confronted with this issue. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted. Demack J and Helman J concurred with this decision.

In addition to granting leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal determined that the costs associated with the application for leave would be included in the costs of the appeal. This decision ensures that the financial burden of the application is appropriately allocated within the legal proceedings.

Johanssen v Burke

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established