Kaz v Murray - [2003] QDC 306

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kaz v Murray [2003] QDC 306

PARTIES:

WILLIAM KAZ (Applicant)

AND

JOHN ERIC MURRAY (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D8 of 2003

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

3 September 2003

JUDGE:

Judge J.M. Robertson

ORDER:

I order the respondent, John Eric Murray, to pay to the applicant, William Kaz, the sum of $2,250.00 under the Act.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – proper construction of s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act; where a nervous shock injury caused by assaults for which no person has been convicted; discussion of scheme for compensation under Criminal Offence Victims Act; applications to State pursuant to s 34 and 33 (1) (b); compensation for assisting police officer to arrest not justicable under Criminal Offence Victims Act.

SOLICITORS:

Mr G Down
(Solicitor for the applicant as town agent for O’Keefe Mahoney Bennett Solicitors).
No appearance for the respondent.

INTRODUCTION

On the 6 January 2002 Senior Constable William Kaz was called to a violent disturbance at 15 Barber Street, Cherbourg. He was with his partner Constable Kath Whiley. When the police officers arrived at the house soon after 4.30pm, John Eric Murray was standing outside the premises abusing his niece Miriam Murray. Both were extremely intoxicated, aggressive and abusive. Miriam Murray went into the house followed by John Murray. The police were obliged to follow as it appeared obvious that violence was imminent. In the course of subsequent events both inside and outside the house, Senior Constable Kaz was threatened, abused, spat upon and bitten by Miriam Murray, punched in the jaw by John Murray, and struck between the legs by another person Steven Priestley. Senior Constable Kaz suffered a number of physical injuries. He has also suffered a moderately severe mental or nervous shock injury. He seeks compensation from John Murray for injuries suffered as a result of a serious assault for which Murray was convicted and sentenced in this Court on 22 January 2003.

THE INCIDENT ON 6 JANUARY 2002.

To understand the ambit of the claim it is necessary to set out a brief summary of what occurred.

Once the police officers were inside the house they found that they were outnumbered by a number of aggressive and drunk people including the Murrays. Constable Whiley attempted to remove Miriam Murray from the house. She responded by hurling a chair at the female officer. Senior Constable Kaz then restrained Miriam Murray who spat in his face. Spittle landed on his mouth and chin. He then attempted to arrest her. She struggled violently. In a cowardly act, John Murray then punched Senior Constable Kaz on the left side of his jaw. The force was so great that it knocked him to the ground and caused his mouth to bleed. Senior Constable Kaz then restrained John Murray to prevent any further assaults.

Steven Priestley then attempted to assault Senior Constable Kaz with a chair. 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 Kaz v Murray

Details

AGLC: Kaz v Murray [2003] QDC 306
Case: [2003] QDC 306
Decision Date: 12 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kaz v Murray, the applicant, Senior Constable William Kaz, sought compensation for injuries he sustained during the course of his duty. The respondent, John Eric Murray, was involved in an altercation with the applicant which led to the applicant suffering various injuries. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant claimed compensation for injuries including a fractured jaw, nervous shock, and injuries to his left eye, which resulted in the loss of his left eye. The respondent was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in relation to the incident.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine whether the applicant's injuries were compensable under the Criminal Offence Victims Act. The applicant argued that he was entitled to compensation for all injuries suffered as a result of the incident, including the nervous shock and the loss of his eye. The court needed to interpret the scope of the Act and determine which injuries were compensable under its provisions. Additionally, the court had to consider whether compensation could be awarded for the nervous shock injury, despite no conviction for the assault causing it.

The court considered the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act and the scheme for compensation. It found that while the applicant's jaw injury was compensable under the Act, the nervous shock and loss of the eye were not. The court noted that the Act's compensation scheme is limited to injuries caused by offences for which a conviction has been obtained. Since no conviction was obtained for the assault causing the nervous shock, this injury was not compensable. Furthermore, the court determined that the loss of the eye was not a compensable injury under the Act. The court also held that compensation for assisting a police officer in arresting someone was not justiciable under the Act. The court awarded the applicant compensation for the jaw injury, amounting to 3% of the scheme maximum, which was set at $2,250.00.

In conclusion, the court ordered John Eric Murray to pay William Kaz $2,250.00 in compensation for the jaw injury sustained during the incident. The court found that the other injuries claimed were not compensable under the Criminal Offence Victims Act. This decision provides clarity on the types of injuries compensable under the Act and the limitations of the compensation scheme.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order the respondent, John Eric Murray, to pay to the applicant, William Kaz, the sum of $2,250.00 under the Act.

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

CONCLUSION It follows that the only injury compensable under the Criminal Offence Victims Act is the injury to the jaw. In the written submission, the solicitors for Senior Constable Kaz submit that the appropriate item is 9. Item 9 is clearly reserved for much more serious injuries than this. I will allow 3% of the scheme maximum under Item 1 which is $2,250.00. Senior Constable Kaz did not contribute either directly or indirectly to the injuries he suffered that afternoon. ORDER I order John Eric Murray to pay to William Kaz the sum of $2,250.00 under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Kaz v Murray [2003] QDC 306
PARTIES:	WILLIAM KAZ (Applicant) AND JOHN ERIC MURRAY (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D8 of 2003
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Kingaroy
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Kingaroy
HEARING DATE:	3 September 2003
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	I order the respondent, John Eric Murray, to pay to the applicant, William Kaz, the sum of $2,250.00 under the Act.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – proper construction of s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act; where a nervous shock injury caused by assaults for which no person has been convicted; discussion of scheme for compensation under Criminal Offence Victims Act; applications to State pursuant to s 34 and 33 (1) (b); compensation for assisting police officer to arrest not justicable under Criminal Offence Victims Act.
SOLICITORS:	Mr G Down (Solicitor for the applicant as town agent for O’Keefe Mahoney Bennett Solicitors). No appearance for the respondent.