Johnson v Bancroft - [2004] QCA 253

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Johnson v Bancroft [2004] QCA 253

PARTIES:

TODD EDWARD JOHNSON
(applicant/applicant)
v
SAMUEL MARK ROBERT BANCROFT
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3787 of 2004
DC No 157 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Grant leave to appeal
2. Allow the appeal
3. Order that compensation in the sum of $27,412.50 be paid to the applicant by the respondent
4. Order the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application and appeal to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where applicant was stabbed by respondent – where respondent convicted of doing grievous bodily harm to applicant and of unlawfully wounding another complainant – where applicant applied for criminal compensation – where learned primary judge awarded sum of $19,500 – where learned primary judge assessed applicant’s contribution at 33 1/3 per cent – whether this assessment of contribution was manifestly excessive – whether assessment of quantum was inadequate

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 19, s 25

Hockley v Sowden [2000] QCA 9; Appeal No 10317 of 1999, 3 Februray 2000, cited
Hohn v King [2004] QCA 254, Appeal No 3738 of 2004, 30 July 2004, referred to
R v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320, cited

COUNSEL:

D R Davies for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf
J A Fraser for the Attorney-General (Qld) as amicus curiae

SOLICITORS:

Groom & Lavers (Oakey) for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf
Crown Law for the Attorney-General (Qld) as amicus curiae

WILLIAMS JA: The background facts relevant to this application for leave to appeal are fully set out in the reasons for judgment of Atkinson J which I have had the advantage of reading; there is no need for me to repeat those facts.

I will also not repeat in this judgment my views on the general applicability of s 19 and s 25(7) of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) which I articulated in my reasons for judgment in Hohn v King delivered contemporaneously with these reasons.

Particularly given that the respondent went back into the unit to obtain a knife and chased the applicant down the street before deliberately stabbing him twice I am of the view that the respondent’s criminal conduct heavily outweighed any influence the applicant’s intoxicated condition had in causing the incident. No criminal conduct on the part of the applicant directly contributed to the commission of the offence. It was the respondent who escalated the confrontation which…

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 Johnson v Bancroft

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Bancroft [2004] QCA 253
Case: [2004] QCA 253
Decision Date: 30 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Johnson against Bancroft centred on an incident in which Bancroft had stabbed Johnson and another individual. Bancroft was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to Johnson and of unlawfully wounding the other individual. Johnson subsequently applied for criminal compensation, and the primary judge awarded him a sum of $19,500. The learned primary judge also assessed Johnson’s contribution to the events at 33 1/3 per cent. Johnson appealed against this decision, arguing that the assessment of his contribution was manifestly excessive and that the quantum of compensation awarded was inadequate.

The court examined the primary judge’s assessment of Johnson's contribution to the events that led to his injury. The court found that the primary judge’s assessment of Johnson’s contribution was not manifestly excessive. However, the court did find that the primary judge had not sufficiently considered the circumstances surrounding the incident and had erred in the quantum of compensation awarded. The court noted that the primary judge had not given adequate consideration to the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Johnson, which were significant and had a profound impact on his life.

In light of these findings, the court allowed the appeal and ordered that compensation in the sum of $27,412.50 be paid to Johnson by Bancroft. The court also ordered that Bancroft pay Johnson’s costs of the application and appeal to be assessed. The decision underscores the importance of a thorough assessment of both the contribution of the victim to the events leading to their injury and the quantum of compensation that should be awarded, taking into account the full extent of the injuries and their impact on the victim's life.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal

2. Allow the appeal

3. Order that compensation in the sum of $27,412.50 be paid to the applicant by the respondent

4. Order the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application and appeal to be assessed

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:	Johnson v Bancroft [2004] QCA 253
PARTIES:	TODD EDWARD JOHNSON (applicant/applicant) v SAMUEL MARK ROBERT BANCROFT (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3787 of 2004 DC No 157 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 May 2004
JUDGES:	Williams JA and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Grant leave to appeal 2. Allow the appeal 3. Order that compensation in the sum of $27,412.50 be paid to the applicant by the respondent 4. Order the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application and appeal to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where applicant was stabbed by respondent – where respondent convicted of doing grievous bodily harm to applicant and of unlawfully wounding another complainant – where applicant applied for criminal compensation – where learned primary judge awarded sum of $19,500 – where learned primary judge assessed applicant’s contribution at 33 1/3 per cent – whether this assessment of contribution was manifestly excessive – whether assessment of quantum was inadequate Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 19, s 25 Hockley v Sowden [2000] QCA 9; Appeal No 10317 of 1999, 3 Februray 2000, cited Hohn v King [2004] QCA 254, Appeal No 3738 of 2004, 30 July 2004, referred to R v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320, cited
COUNSEL:	D R Davies for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf J A Fraser for the Attorney-General (Qld) as amicus curiae
SOLICITORS:	Groom & Lavers (Oakey) for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf Crown Law for the Attorney-General (Qld) as amicus curiae