Lee v Fisher - [2010] QDC 367

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lee v Fisher & Ors [2010] QDC 367

PARTIES:

TAE HEE LEE

(Applicant)

v

HEDLEY JADE FISHER

(First Respondent)

MATTHEW ZANE LINK

(Second Respondent)

ANTHONY PETER FREDERICK MURPHY

(Third Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

132/10

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 October 2010

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDER:

The respondents pay to the applicant the sum of $16,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of robbery in company with personal violence.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where the respondents were convicted of robbery in company with personal violence – where the applicant suffered physical and psychological injuries – assessment of compensation

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 22, s 24, s 25, s 26

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld), s 2

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 27, r 96

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 155

Boyd-Bush v Braden [2010] QDC 348

Laning v Cherry-Kelly (Martin SC DCJ, District Court No 3795/09, judgment delivered 20 August 2010)

R v Ward, ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436; [2000] QCA 493

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149

COUNSEL:

Y Chekirova for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Campbell + White Lawyers for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondents

Introduction

The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to s 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for physical and emotional injuries caused by an attack by the respondents on 1 June 2006. The Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 was repealed by s 149 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 which commenced on 1 December 2009. The transitional provision in s 155 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 requires the application to be determined in accordance with the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

On 17 October 2008 in the Childrens Court of Queensland, the first respondent pleaded guilty, inter alia, to one count of robbery in company with personal violence. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be served by way of intensive correction order.[1]
[1]Exhibit H to the affidavit of Lauren Maree Wilkie filed 15 January 2010.

On 12 October 2007, the second and third respondents pleaded guilty, inter alia, to one count of robbery in company with personal violence. The second respondent was sentenced in the Childrens Court of Queensland to 497 days detention.[2] The third respondent was sentenced in the District Court to 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of 2 years.[3]
[2]Exhibit I to the affidavit of Lauren Maree Wilkie filed 15 January 2010.
[3]Exhibit J to the affidavit of Lauren Maree Wilkie filed 15 January 2010.

The first respondent was personally served on 30 September 2010.[4] The documents had previously been left at the Borallon Correctional Centre, who had advised the applicant’s solicitors on 29 September…

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 Lee v Fisher

Details

AGLC: Lee v Fisher & Ors [2010] QDC 367
Case: [2010] QDC 367
Decision Date: 4 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lee v Fisher involved the applicant, Lee, seeking compensation from the respondents, Fisher and another, for injuries sustained during a robbery. The respondents had been convicted of robbery in company with personal violence, and Lee claimed both physical and psychological injuries as a result. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of compensation under the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The primary legal issue was the assessment of the compensation to be awarded to Lee, considering the nature and extent of his injuries.

The court considered the evidence presented regarding Lee's physical and psychological injuries. It assessed the impact of these injuries on his life and future prospects, taking into account the severity and permanence of the harm. The court also examined the statutory framework under which the compensation was to be awarded, ensuring that the amount was just and appropriate given the circumstances. In determining the compensation, the court balanced the need to provide adequate relief to the victim against the financial constraints of the respondents.

Following its assessment, the court concluded that the appropriate compensation to be awarded was $16,500. This amount was intended to reflect the injuries Lee sustained, the impact on his life, and the statutory requirements for criminal compensation. The court ordered the respondents to pay this sum to Lee by way of compensation, as provided under section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. This decision provided Lee with a measure of relief for the harm suffered during the criminal incident.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondents pay to the applicant the sum of $16,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of robbery in company with personal violence.

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:	Lee v Fisher & Ors [2010] QDC 367
PARTIES:	TAE HEE LEE (Applicant) v HEDLEY JADE FISHER (First Respondent) MATTHEW ZANE LINK (Second Respondent) ANTHONY PETER FREDERICK MURPHY (Third Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	132/10
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 October 2010
JUDGE:	Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:	The respondents pay to the applicant the sum of $16,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of robbery in company with personal violence.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where the respondents were convicted of robbery in company with personal violence – where the applicant suffered physical and psychological injuries – assessment of compensation Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 22, s 24, s 25, s 26 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld), s 2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 27, r 96 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 155 Boyd-Bush v Braden [2010] QDC 348 Laning v Cherry-Kelly (Martin SC DCJ, District Court No 3795/09, judgment delivered 20 August 2010) R v Ward, ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436; [2000] QCA 493 RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149
COUNSEL:	Y Chekirova for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Campbell + White Lawyers for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondents