DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: KLW v ACH [2001] QDC 306 PARTIES: K L W (Applicant)
And
A C H (Respondent)FILE NO/S: D443/01 DIVISION: Chambers PROCEEDING: Application for criminal compensation ORIGINATING COURT: District Court DELIVERED ON: 6th December 2001 DELIVERED AT: Maroochydore HEARING DATE: 26th November 2001 JUDGE: Judge J.M. Robertson ORDER: Respondent to pay to the applicant by way of compensation the sum of $9,750. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – application for criminal compensation – assessment where two direct causes of psychological injury, one compensable and one non-compensable – application of common law in assessing causation under the Act
Cases cited:
JI v AV [2001] QCA 510
SAM v. SAM [2000] QDC 312
Prendergast v. Millar (unreported judgment of Samios DCJ, D2292/2000, 12.7.00)
R v. Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (Motion No. 324 of 1995, unreported judgment of the Supreme Court, 22.6.95)
D v. Ward [2000] QCA 493Statutes considered:
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, s.24
Criminal Code, s.663BCOUNSEL: N.V. Stubbins (for the applicant)
No appearance for the respondentSOLICITORS: McColm Matsinger Lawyers (for the applicant)
The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to s.24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (the Act).
The respondent was convicted in this court on the 10th November 1999 of two indictable offences committed against the person of the applicant namely indecently dealing with a child under 16 years, and unlawful assault. Both offences occurred on the 16th October 1998. He was sentenced by His Honour Judge Robin to concurrent terms of imprisonment wholly suspended.
Both offences occurred during one course of unlawful conduct by the respondent. The applicant was 15 at the time. She knew the respondent’s wife and had agreed to babysit the respondent’s 10 month old daughter while he took his wife shopping. When the respondent returned home the respondent kissed her on the face and stomach and attempted to touch her vagina by attempting to push his hand up under her shorts. She resisted strenuously, and when he attempted to touch her breast she kicked him in the thigh which caused him to desist. The second count occurred when he grabbed her left arm and attempted to stop her leaving after the indecent dealing.
On the 20th October 1998, the applicant was examined by a general practitioner who noted a slightly tender area with mild bruising on her left arm. I am satisfied this is as a result of the assault. She is entitled to 1% of the scheme maximum under Item 1 of the Compensation Table which is $750.
The applicant has suffered a mental or nervous injury as a result of the offences.
At the time of sentencing, Judge Robin was informed by the prosecutor that the applicant was “extremely shaken and distressed but (sic.) what had occurred. Initially she says that she suffered from broken sleep and nightmares. The complainant has not seen any long term effects. However, she has on occasion seen the accused either at her work…
Continue reading KLW v ACH
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- KLW v ACH [2001] QDC 306
- Case
- [2001] QDC 306
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to assess the contribution of the compensable cause to the applicant's injury. It was determined that the common law principles of causation, particularly the "material contribution" test, applied to the assessment of compensation under the Act. The court found that the compensable cause was a material contribution to the applicant's injury and awarded compensation reflecting that contribution. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.
As a result of the court's findings, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $9,750 by way of compensation. This amount represented the court's assessment of the compensable cause's contribution to the applicant's overall injury, taking into account the presence of a non-compensable cause. The decision provides guidance on the application of common law causation principles in assessing compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Respondent to pay to the applicant by way of compensation the sum of $9,750.
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.