KSV v RWB

Case [2007] QDC 233


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

KSV v RWB [2007] QDC 233

PARTIES:

KSV
Applicant

v

RWB
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

59/2007

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

31 July 2007

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent, RWB, pay the applicant, KSV, the sum of $25,000 and costs to be assessed on a standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

Application – Criminal Compensation – Indecent Dealing – Mental or Nervous Shock

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code (Qld) ss 663A, 663AA, 663B, 663B(1), 663B(2), 663BA

Criminal Code and Justices Act Amendment Act 1975 (Qld)

s 5

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s 46(2)

CASES:

W v W [2003] QDC 435

R v Jones; ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524

R v Boughton; ex parte Holt (unreported) District Court, Helman DCJ – No 124/1993 – 13 August 1993

COUNSEL:

Ms M Poriz (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lee Lawyers for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

  1. The applicant, KSV, was the complainant in respect of five counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16 years, who was under 14 years, to which counts the respondent, RWB, pleaded guilty before me at the Southport District Court on 24 March 2006. In respect of those five counts, the respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment with an eligibility for post prison community based release after two years.

Facts

  1. The applicant, KSV, was born on 14 October 1977.  The five counts which are the subject of this application occurred on dates unknown between 14 January 1981 (when the applicant was still four years old) and 31 January 1982 (when the applicant was then five years old).  This applicant was one of eight different complainants against whom the respondent had committed a range of sexual offences over a period between 1957 and 2003.

  1. The facts of the relevant offences, as set out in the Schedule of Facts[1], are as follows:

    [1] Exhibit 1 in Sentence Proceedings

Count 11

“The [applicant] was 4 or 5 years old at the time of the offence. The [respondent] was between 44 and 45 years old and is the [applicant’s] uncle by virtue of his son’s marriage to the [applicant’s] mother.

When the [applicant] was 4 years old turning 5 she went with the [respondent] in his vehicle to buy alcohol for a family Sunday dinner in Runaway Bay. The [applicant] was the only other occupant and was seated in the front passenger seat. As they drove away from the house the [respondent] placed his left hand underneath the leg of the [applicant’s] shorts. He then moved his hand between her legs and touched her on the outside of her vagina on the skin. His hand remained on her vagina for about five minutes while they drove to the shop and he fondled the lips of her vagina both inside and out, but did not penetrate the vaginal orifice. He stopped…

Continue reading KSV v RWB

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
KSV v RWB [2007] QDC 233
Case
[2007] QDC 233
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of KSV v RWB, the applicant sought compensation from the respondent for a criminal act which resulted in the applicant suffering mental or nervous shock. The dispute was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in indecent dealings, causing the applicant to suffer significant mental distress. The applicant claimed that the distress was severe enough to warrant compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Scheme.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's claim for mental or nervous shock was valid under the relevant legislation and whether the applicant was entitled to compensation. The court considered the evidence presented by the applicant and the respondent regarding the nature and extent of the applicant's mental distress. The court also examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the criteria for awarding compensation for mental or nervous shock.

After considering the evidence and the law, the court found that the applicant's claim for mental or nervous shock was valid and that the applicant was entitled to compensation. The court determined that the respondent's actions had caused the applicant significant mental distress, which met the criteria for compensation under the Criminal Injury Compensation Scheme. The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in compensation and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on a standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent, RWB, pay the applicant, KSV, the sum of $25,000 and costs to be assessed on a standard basis

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.