JT v PB - [2006] QDC 139

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JT v PB [2006] QDC 139

PARTIES:

JT (Applicant)

V

PB (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Beenleigh D19/06

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2006

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

1. That the respondent pays to the applicant the sum of $20,000.00 as compensation for the injury suffered by her as a result of the offences of which the respondent was convicted and sentenced by this Court on 26 April 2005.

2. I further order that the respondent pay the applicant her costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale where the amount recovered is less than $50,000.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation claim pursuant to s663B of the Criminal Code – mental or nervous shock – prescribed amounts – whether “one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct” – relevant test to be applied.

Criminal Code (Qld) ss 663A, 663AA and 663B.
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss 40 and 46(2).
MAJ v. KM [2000] QCA 410.
McClintock v Jones [1995] 79 A Crim R 238.
R v Llorente ex parte Hendry [2001] 2 Qd R 415.

SOLICITORS:

Ms F Muirhead of LAQ for the applicant.

No appearance for the respondent.

Introduction

The applicant, JT, claims compensation for injury sustained by her as a result of the criminal offences committed against her by the respondent to the application, PB.

The respondent was convicted by this court at Beenleigh on 26 April 2005 of four counts of unlawful and indecent treatment against this applicant between 1 January 1984 and 1 March 1985 when the applicant was aged between 8 and 9 years.

This application is made on the basis of a “mental or nervous shock” assessment by Dr Janis Carter, psychiatrist, in her report of 15 November 2005 which is Exhibit “A” to her affidavit filed 23 February 2006. There are no physical injuries to the applicant which form the basis of any claim for compensation before the court.

Relevant Legislation

As the offences occurred prior to 18 December 1995, Chapter 65A of the Criminal Code (“the Code”) applies, as if not repealed.[1]
[1]Section 46(2) Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995.

Specifically, this application is made pursuant to s 663B(1) of the Code which relevantly provides:

“Where a person is convicted on indictment of any indictable offence relating to the person of any person or of more than 1 indictable offence relating to the person of any person (whether in respect of 1 indictment or more than 1 indictment) arising out of the one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct of that person so convicted, the court, on the application by or on behalf of the person aggrieved by the offence or offences, may, in addition to any other sentence or order it may make, order the person to pay to the person aggrieved a sum…

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 JT v PB

Details

AGLC: JT v PB [2006] QDC 139
Case: [2006] QDC 139
Decision Date: 26 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case are JT, the applicant, and PB, the respondent. The nature of the dispute pertains to a claim for compensation under section 663B of the Criminal Code, specifically for mental or nervous shock caused by the respondent's criminal conduct. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether the compensation claim fell within the prescribed amounts and if the events in question constituted "one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct." The court also had to identify the appropriate test to apply in assessing the claim.

The legal issues at hand required the court to interpret the scope of compensation under section 663B of the Criminal Code. The court had to consider the statutory framework governing compensation for mental or nervous shock, and whether the respondent's actions constituted a single course of conduct or multiple related courses. The court further needed to apply the correct test to determine if the applicant's claim was valid and the appropriate compensation amount.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the events in question did indeed constitute one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct. The court found that the applicant's claim was valid and fell within the prescribed amounts. The court applied the correct test, taking into account the nature of the offences and their impact on the applicant. As a result, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $20,000 in compensation. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application, to be agreed upon or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the respondent pays to the applicant the sum of $20,000.00 as compensation for the injury suffered by her as a result of the offences of which the respondent was convicted and sentenced by this Court on 26 April 2005.

2. I further order that the respondent pay the applicant her costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale where the amount recovered is less than $50,000.

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:	JT v PB [2006] QDC 139
PARTIES:	JT (Applicant) V PB (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Beenleigh D19/06
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	26 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 May 2006
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	1. That the respondent pays to the applicant the sum of $20,000.00 as compensation for the injury suffered by her as a result of the offences of which the respondent was convicted and sentenced by this Court on 26 April 2005. 2. I further order that the respondent pay the applicant her costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale where the amount recovered is less than $50,000.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation claim pursuant to s663B of the Criminal Code – mental or nervous shock – prescribed amounts – whether “one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct” – relevant test to be applied. Criminal Code (Qld) ss 663A, 663AA and 663B. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss 40 and 46(2). MAJ v. KM [2000] QCA 410. McClintock v Jones [1995] 79 A Crim R 238. R v Llorente ex parte Hendry [2001] 2 Qd R 415.
SOLICITORS:	Ms F Muirhead of LAQ for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.