Lapresle v Meiers - [2009] QDC 391

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lapresle v Meiers [2009] QDC 391

PARTIES:

ROBERT ANDREW LAPRESLE

(Applicant)

v

CLAUDETTE ALLISON MEIERS

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD 3203/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 November 2009

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $8,250 by way of compensation pursuant to s24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of serious assault, which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Brisbane on 23 July 2008

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION –– Serious assault –physical injuries and mental or nervous shock

COUNSEL:

A Cappellano for the applicant.

No appearance by or for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Campbell White Lawyers for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

Introduction

The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to s.24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for physical and emotional injuries caused by the offence of serious assault committed by the respondent on 26 August 2007.

On 23 July 2008 the respondent pleaded guilty to 1 count of serious assault. The respondent was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment with immediate release on parole. A conviction was recorded.

The respondent was served with the originating application and supporting material on 12 November 2009.[1]
[1] Affidavit of Michael Francis Silvester filed 20 November 2009

There was no appearance by or for the respondent at the hearing of the application.

Circumstances of the offence

The applicant is a police constable. The respondent had taken between 20 and 100 Panadol tablets in an attempt to take her own life. Ambulance officers were in attendance at the scene and requested the assistance of police. The applicant attended the scene and heard screaming coming from the house.

The respondent indicated to the applicant and his partner that she was intending to leave the house by car. The applicant attempted to talk to the respondent to calm her down. She attempted to walk out the front door. The applicant and his fellow officer each took hold of one of her arms. She became aggressive.

The applicant and his partner began escorting the respondent to the police car when she bit the applicant on the right forearm. The bite did not break the skin.

Injuries and medical reports

The applicant in his affidavit states:[2]
[2] Affidavit of Robert Andrew Lapresle filed 11 November 2009

“9. Initially I was extremely concerned about having contracted a contagious disease as a result of the bite. I cleaned the wound which was red and swollen. I could see the bite marks in my skin.

10. I then travelled to the Redcliffe Hospital to further assist other officers in the restraint of the Respondent and whilst there, antiseptic medication was applied to the wound.

11. On the 30^th of August 2007 I attended my local doctor who provided me with some information regarding blood testing and…

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 Lapresle v Meiers

Details

AGLC: Lapresle v Meiers [2009] QDC 391
Case: [2009] QDC 391
Decision Date: 27 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lapresle v Meiers involved a dispute regarding compensation for injuries sustained by the applicant, Lapresle, as a result of an assault by Meiers. The incident led to Meiers' conviction in the District Court at Brisbane on 23 July 2008. Lapresle sought compensation under section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for both physical injuries and mental or nervous shock. The court was tasked with determining the quantum of compensation to be awarded.

The primary legal issue before the court was to assess the extent of Lapresle's physical injuries and mental or nervous shock, and to determine the appropriate amount of compensation under the statutory provisions. The court had to evaluate the evidence provided by Lapresle regarding the physical injuries and psychological impact of the assault. Additionally, the court had to consider the factors outlined in section 24 of the Act, which include the nature and extent of the injuries, the degree of fault on the part of the offender, and the circumstances in which the offence was committed.

In delivering its decision, the court carefully examined the evidence presented. It found that Lapresle had sustained significant physical injuries and suffered mental or nervous shock as a consequence of the assault. The court took into account the severity of the injuries, the impact on Lapresle's daily life, and the overall circumstances of the offence. Based on this assessment, the court determined that the appropriate compensation for Lapresle was $8,250. The court concluded that this amount fairly reflected the harm caused by Meiers' actions and provided adequate recompense under the statutory framework.

The court ordered Meiers to pay the sum of $8,250 to Lapresle by way of compensation for the injuries sustained as a result of the serious assault. This amount was deemed sufficient to cover the physical and psychological consequences of the incident, as well as to provide a measure of justice for Lapresle under the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $8,250 by way of compensation pursuant to s24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of serious assault, which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Brisbane on 23 July 2008

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:	Lapresle v Meiers [2009] QDC 391
PARTIES:	ROBERT ANDREW LAPRESLE (Applicant) v CLAUDETTE ALLISON MEIERS (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD 3203/09
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 November 2009
JUDGE:	Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $8,250 by way of compensation pursuant to s24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of serious assault, which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Brisbane on 23 July 2008
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION –– Serious assault –physical injuries and mental or nervous shock
COUNSEL:	A Cappellano for the applicant. No appearance by or for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Campbell White Lawyers for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent