Lane v East - [2011] QDC 282

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lane v East [2011] QDC 282

PARTIES:

DONNA LEANNE LANE (NEE REED)

(Applicant)

V

ELIZABETH PAULINE EAST

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3349/2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Compensation Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane.

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2011

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

1. The respondent Elizabeth Pauline East pays the applicant Donna Leanne Lane (nee Reed) the sum of $18,750.00 by way of 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 14 April 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – Two (2) counts of common assault – where respondent placed an ice cube inside the applicant’s clothing and grabbed her left breast – where respondent placed walking stick between applicant’s thighs touching her genital region –where applicant sustained no physical injuries – where applicant was assessed 3 years after the index assaults and diagnosed to have suffered “mental or nervous shock” and alleged “adverse impacts”.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 25, 26, 31

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995

Ferguson v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320

LMW v Nicholls (2004) QDC 118

MR v Webb [2001] QCA 113

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149

SAY v AZ: ex parte AG (Qld) [2006] QCA 462

SOLICITORS:

Mr SA Olsen of Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the applicant

No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent

Introduction:

Donna Leanne Lane (nee Reed) (“the applicant”) claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for “mental or nervous shock” and “adverse impacts” she allegedly sustained between the 1 November 2007 and 19 November 2007 at the Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre at Wacol arising out of the criminal conduct of Elizabeth Pauline East (“the respondent”) who was convicted by the District Court at Brisbane on the 14 April 2009 of two counts of common assault only against the applicant. (emphasis added)

The application for compensation is made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:

(a) The affidavit of Sarah Jane Dreger, Solicitor, with exhibits, affirmed and filed on 8 November 2010;

(b) The affidavit of the applicant, with exhibits, affirmed 2 December 2010 and filed on 3 December 2010;

(c) The affidavit of Peter Jordan, Psychologist, with exhibits, affirmed and filed on 28 February 2011;

(d) The further affidavit of Sarah Jane Dreger, Solicitor, with exhibits, affirmed and filed on 3 March 2011;

(e) The affidavit of service of Allan Leslie Green, Bailiff, affirmed on 28 February 2011 and filed 9 March 2011.

The respondent was served personally with the application and supporting affidavits on 25 February 2011 but made no appearance at the hearing on 9 March 2011 at Brisbane and the hearing proceeded in her absence.

Background Facts:

The offences against the respondent arose out of two incidents between the 1 November 2007 and 19 November 2007 whilst the applicant…

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 Lane v East

Details

AGLC: Lane v East [2011] QDC 282
Case: [2011] QDC 282
Decision Date: 18 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lane v East, the applicant, Donna Leanne Lane, sought compensation from the respondent, Elizabeth Pauline East, following two counts of common assault. The respondent had placed an ice cube inside the applicant’s clothing and grabbed her left breast, as well as placing a walking stick between the applicant’s thighs touching her genital region. The applicant sustained no physical injuries but was assessed three years after the incident and diagnosed to have suffered “mental or nervous shock” and alleged “adverse impacts”.

The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for the non-physical injuries she sustained as a result of the respondent’s actions. The court needed to determine if the applicant’s psychological harm was a direct result of the assault and whether it warranted compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

The court held that the applicant’s psychological harm was a direct result of the assault, and therefore, she was entitled to compensation. The court recognised that the respondent’s actions were intentional and that the applicant had suffered significant mental distress as a result. The court noted that the applicant had provided evidence of her ongoing psychological harm, including depression and anxiety, and that the respondent’s actions had caused her to suffer a significant impact on her life. The court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for her non-physical injuries, and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $18,750.00.

The court’s decision was based on the principle that compensation should be awarded for all injuries suffered as a result of a crime of violence, regardless of whether they are physical or psychological. The court recognised that the applicant’s psychological harm was a direct result of the respondent’s actions and that it had caused her significant distress and impacted her life. The court held that the respondent was liable to compensate the applicant for her non-physical injuries. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $18,750.00 by way of 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 14 April 2009.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent Elizabeth Pauline East pays the applicant Donna Leanne Lane (nee Reed) the sum of $18,750.00 by way of 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 14 April 2009.

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:	Lane v East [2011] QDC 282
PARTIES:	DONNA LEANNE LANE (NEE REED) (Applicant) V ELIZABETH PAULINE EAST (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3349/2009
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Compensation Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane.
DELIVERED ON:	18 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2011
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	1. The respondent Elizabeth Pauline East pays the applicant Donna Leanne Lane (nee Reed) the sum of $18,750.00 by way of 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 14 April 2009.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – Two (2) counts of common assault – where respondent placed an ice cube inside the applicant’s clothing and grabbed her left breast – where respondent placed walking stick between applicant’s thighs touching her genital region –where applicant sustained no physical injuries – where applicant was assessed 3 years after the index assaults and diagnosed to have suffered “mental or nervous shock” and alleged “adverse impacts”. Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 25, 26, 31 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 Ferguson v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320 LMW v Nicholls (2004) QDC 118 MR v Webb [2001] QCA 113 RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149 SAY v AZ: ex parte AG (Qld) [2006] QCA 462
SOLICITORS:	Mr SA Olsen of Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the applicant No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent