Mag v JRG - [2007] QDC 337

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

MAG v JRG [2007] QDC 337

PARTIES:

MAG

(Applicant)

v

JRG

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Emerald D2/2007

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Emerald

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

District Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 September 2007, further written submissions filed on 12 December 2007

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. That the respondent pay to the applicant pursuant to s 663B Criminal Code the sum of $ 50,000 by way of compensation for injury suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court at Rockhampton on 22 April 2005

2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – CRIMINAL CODE – Sexual offences - indecent treatment – attempted sodomy – mental or nervous shock – adjustment disorder – paranoid personality disorder –– course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct

Criminal Code Act (Qld) 1899
Public Trustee Act (Qld) 1978

ARW v FGR [2007] QSC 236, applied
MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410, applied
R v Jones; ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524, applied
HW v LO [2001] 2 Qd R 415, applied
SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12, applied

COUNSEL:

R F Peters, solicitor, for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anne Murray & Co for the applicant

No appearance by or for the respondent

Introduction

This is an application for compensation pursuant to s 663B Criminal Code. Although that provision has been repealed, it remains applicable to cases where injury was suffered because of an act done before the date of commencement of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 on 18 December 1995.[1]
[1] Section 46 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

The respondent was sentenced in the District Court at Rockhampton on 22 April 2005 to three years imprisonment for offences committed upon the applicant. He was sentenced to a cumulative term of two years imprisonment for other offences.

The respondent was served with the application and supporting affidavits on 5 July 2007.[2]
[2] Affidavit of Adrienne Joan Jackson, filed 19 July 2007.

The application was listed for hearing before me in the District Court at Emerald on 11 September 2007. There was no appearance by or for the respondent. The applicant was represented by Mr R F Peters. At the hearing I raised two issues with the applicant’s solicitor. The first concerned whether it was necessary for the Public Trustee to be served with the material. That step appeared to be necessary because the respondent is a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years and the Public Trustee is therefore the manager of his estate by reason of s 91 Public Trustee Act 1978. Mr Peters accepted that it appeared to be necessary for the Public Trustee to be served with the material.

The other issue concerned whether 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 Mag v JRG

Details

AGLC: Mag v JRG [2007] QDC 337
Case: [2007] QDC 337
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mag v JRG involves the applicant seeking compensation under the Criminal Code for injuries sustained as a result of criminal offences committed by the respondent. The respondent had been convicted in the District Court at Rockhampton of indecent treatment and attempted sodomy. The applicant claims to have suffered mental or nervous shock, leading to adjustment disorder and paranoid personality disorder. This claim is based on a series of incidents that the applicant argues were part of a course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's injuries were a direct result of the respondent's criminal actions and whether they were compensable under the statute.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's mental health conditions were caused by the respondent's criminal conduct and if those conditions could be considered as injuries for the purposes of claiming compensation under the Criminal Code. The court needed to assess the evidence presented regarding the nature and extent of the applicant's injuries, the connection between those injuries and the respondent's actions, and whether the injuries fell within the scope of compensable harm under the legislation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's pre-existing mental health conditions could have contributed to the injuries claimed.

The court found that the applicant's adjustment disorder and paranoid personality disorder were directly caused by the respondent's criminal conduct, specifically the indecent treatment and attempted sodomy. The court accepted that the applicant's injuries met the criteria for compensable harm under the Criminal Code. It was determined that the respondent's actions constituted a course of conduct that resulted in the applicant suffering significant mental health issues. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicant was entitled to compensation. The court awarded the applicant $50,000 in compensation and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application, to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the respondent pay to the applicant pursuant to s 663B Criminal Code the sum of $ 50,000 by way of compensation for injury suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court at Rockhampton on 22 April 2005

2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed

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:	MAG v JRG [2007] QDC 337
PARTIES:	MAG (Applicant) v JRG (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Emerald D2/2007
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Emerald
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2007
DELIVERED AT:	District Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 September 2007, further written submissions filed on 12 December 2007
JUDGE:	Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. That the respondent pay to the applicant pursuant to s 663B Criminal Code the sum of $ 50,000 by way of compensation for injury suffered by the applicant by reason of the offences of which the respondent was convicted in the District Court at Rockhampton on 22 April 2005 2. That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – CRIMINAL CODE – Sexual offences - indecent treatment – attempted sodomy – mental or nervous shock – adjustment disorder – paranoid personality disorder –– course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct Criminal Code Act (Qld) 1899 Public Trustee Act (Qld) 1978 ARW v FGR [2007] QSC 236, applied MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410, applied R v Jones; ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524, applied HW v LO [2001] 2 Qd R 415, applied SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12, applied
COUNSEL:	R F Peters, solicitor, for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Anne Murray & Co for the applicant No appearance by or for the respondent