M v B - [2004] QDC 432

REVISED COPIES ISSUED
REVISED COPIES ISSUED
State Reporting Bureau
State Reporting Bureau

Date: 2 November, 2004 Date: 12 August, 2004

DISTRICT COURT

[2004] QDC 432

CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No BD899 of 2004

M Applicant
and
B Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 03/08/2004
JUDGMENT
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - COMPENSATION - SEXUAL OFFENCES - where respondent convicted of 3 counts unlawful carnal knowledge - where applicant aged 14 & 15 when offences occurred - where respondent was 6 yrs older - where applicant now suffers post traumatic stress disorder - no appearance by respondent to take advantage of time limitations applying pursuant to s663B Criminal Code - wh disorder caused by respondent's criminal conduct - wh applicant's conduct contributed to offences.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

03082004 D.1 T1/CML (Robin, DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for criminal compensation 1

under section 663B of the Criminal Code, by a lady who is now 28, based on the conviction of the respondent on his own plea on three counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of her. Those
happened when she was 14 and 15.

The dates of the offences begin with 31 July 1990, referable to an occasion in the applicant's family home when intercourse happened in her older sister's bedroom. The older sister was, in fact, the former partner of the offender. Perhaps

"partner" puts it too high; "former girlfriend" may be a more
accurate description.
The second count happened on 11 September 1990 in the offender's motor vehicle after he had collected the applicant

from a school dance. Intercourse happened in the vehicle at Mt Coot-tha. She found the event even more exciting because he was apprehended by police for speeding on the way home.

The third occasion was on 2 September 1991. It happened after the protagonists had met in a shop and he had advised her that he had moved to a new flat in Ipswich and invited her to go

40
and see him there. She went there by train after keeping some
appointment in Brisbane and sexual intercourse happened for
the last time then.
50

The offender's age was about 6 years greater than the applicant's. Notwithstanding the breakdown of the relationship with the older sister, he remained on very good 03082004 D.1 T1/CML (Robin, DCJ)

2

JUDGMENT

60

terms with the family, and was welcome in the home. He seems 1
to have been mates with the applicant's brother. The
applicant was, it seems, infatuated with him, particularly,
when he became available on the…

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 M v B

Details

AGLC: M v B [2004] QDC 432
Case: [2004] QDC 432
Decision Date: 3/08/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

M has brought an application under section 663B of the Criminal Code for criminal compensation against B, who was convicted of three counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of her when she was 14 and 15 years old, and he was six years older. M now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, which she attributes to the offending. B did not appear to take advantage of time limitations applying pursuant to section 663B of the Criminal Code. The legal issue before the Court was whether M could be awarded compensation despite her conduct contributing to the offences. The Court found that M's conduct considerably contributed to the offence, and therefore the application ought to fail. Additionally, the application was statute-barred, having been filed after the six-year limitation period had expired. The Court dismissed the application for criminal compensation.

Orders