Kelly v. Sieboth

Case [2008] QDC 305


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kelly v Sieboth [2008] QDC 305

PARTIES:

LISA MAREE KELLY

(Applicant)

v

MICHAEL WARREN SIEBOTH

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

97/2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

31 October 2008

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Michael Warren Sieboth pay the applicant Lisa Marie Kelly the sum of $13,500

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

APPLICATION – criminal compensation – armed robbery – deprivation of liberty – mental or nervous shock

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436

Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337

Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148

COUNSEL:

Mr J Kimmins for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Carew Lawyers for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

  1. The applicant Lisa Marie Kelly seeks compensation in respect of mental or nervous shock suffered by her as a result of offences committed by the respondent, Michael Warren Sieboth on 21 January 2006 at Crestmead, Queensland.  The respondent pleaded guilty (relevantly) to one count of armed robbery with personal violence and one count of deprivation of liberty, and was sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment (with respect to the armed robbery with personal violence charge) and twelve months imprisonment (concurrent) in respect of the deprivation of liberty charge.

Facts

  1. The schedule of facts tendered on the sentence before me on 13 March 2007 at the Beenleigh District Court indicates the following facts:[1]

    [1]Exhibit AP1 (property offences schedule), affidavit of Ashleigh Park sworn 12 November 2008.

“[The applicant] worked as [a] shop attendant for the company Jay C Pty Ltd which operated a convenience store located at 55 Waratah Drive, Crestmead.

Shortly before 9 pm on the evening of 21 January 2006, the co‑accused, Nicholas Cross, drove himself and [the respondent] to the premises of the complainant company and parked at the rear of the store.  Nicholas Cross waited in the vehicle while [the respondent] robbed the store.

[The respondent] ran into the store wearing a stocking over his head, a beanie on top of this [sic] head and a pair of pink washing‑up gloves on his hands.  He was holding a knife with a seven inch blade.  [The respondent] walked up to [the applicant], who was standing in front of the counter, and said ‘Give me the money’.  Two other employees were behind the counter at the time.  One entered the contents of the cash register into a plastic carry bag and handed it to [the respondent].

[The respondent] then shouted ‘Get the money out of the safe’.  When none of the employees moved, he then shouted at [the applicant] ‘Get out the back’.  [The applicant] moved behind the counter, with [the respondent] following her.  [The respondent] shouted ‘What are you doing?  Stay where I can see you’ at the other two employees and waited while [the applicant] went into a room behind…

Continue reading Kelly v. Sieboth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kelly v Sieboth [2008] QDC 305
Case
[2008] QDC 305
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kelly v. Sieboth was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Lisa Marie Kelly, sought criminal injury compensation from the respondent, Michael Warren Sieboth, for injuries sustained during an armed robbery incident. The respondent, previously convicted for the crime, was ordered to pay compensation to the applicant, who was the victim of the robbery and suffered a deprivation of liberty as well as mental or nervous shock.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's injuries met the threshold for compensation under the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant's deprivation of liberty and mental or nervous shock were sufficient to warrant compensation. The court also considered the extent to which the respondent's criminal conduct contributed to the applicant's injuries.

The court found that the applicant's injuries were directly caused by the respondent's criminal conduct and were of a serious and significant nature. The court held that the applicant's deprivation of liberty and mental or nervous shock were compensable injuries under the relevant statutory provisions. The court emphasised the need to protect victims of crime and provide them with appropriate compensation. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $13,500 in criminal injury compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Michael Warren Sieboth pay the applicant Lisa Marie Kelly the sum of $13,500

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.