Davies JA, Ambrose and Chesterman JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:
Application for extension of time for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for extension of time within which to appeal against amount awarded for criminal compensation pursuant to Chapter 65A Criminal Code – respondent pleaded guilty to six acts of indecent dealing – where offences occurred over a period of five months – where definition of "prescribed amount" under s 663A Criminal Code was amended after the date the offences were committed – whether amended definition prescribed the maximum amount which could be awarded at the relevant time – consideration of the correct interpretation of "course of conduct" under s 663B Criminal Code – whether the offences arose out of one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct – whether compensation could be awarded for each separate offence or is limited to the totality of the injury arising from the offences
R v Busch; ex parte Callope Application No 9834 of 1997, 23 March 1998, considered
COUNSEL:
A J Kimmins for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Tony Bailey (Samford) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
DAVIES JA: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal and an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the District Court on 17 April this year. The application for leave was filed on 13 July two months out of time. The explanation given for the delay is a difficulty in obtaining funds to finance the appeal. The appeal in any event requires leave because it is from a judgment for $5,000. It is convenient to defer consideration of the application for extension of time and the application for leave until consideration has been given to the issues which would arise in an appeal if leave were granted.
The applicant who is now 29 years of age was awarded $5,000 compensation against the respondent pursuant to Chapter 65A of the Criminal Code for psychiatric injury suffered in consequence of six acts of indecent dealing against her to which 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 MAJ v KM
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410
Case
[2000] QCA 410
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of MAJ v KM involved an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against the amount awarded for criminal compensation. The respondent, KM, had pleaded guilty to six acts of indecent dealing that occurred over a period of five months. The primary issue before the court was whether the amended definition of "prescribed amount" under section 663A of the Criminal Code applied to the offences committed before the amendment, or whether the original definition was to be applied. Additionally, the court had to determine the correct interpretation of the phrase "course of conduct" under section 663B of the Criminal Code, specifically whether the offences arose from one course of conduct or closely related courses of conduct. This, in turn, affected whether compensation could be awarded for each separate offence or if it was limited to the totality of the injury arising from the offences.
The court considered the legislative history and the purpose of the Criminal Code in interpreting the relevant provisions. It held that the amended definition of "prescribed amount" applied to the offences in question, as the legislative intent was to provide a maximum limit on the compensation that could be awarded. The court also concluded that the offences arose out of one course of conduct, as they were closely related and part of a continuous pattern of behaviour. Consequently, the compensation was to be awarded based on the totality of the injury arising from the offences, rather than for each separate offence.
In light of the above, the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal was refused. The court found that the interpretation of the statutory provisions was not in dispute and that the application did not present a sufficiently compelling case to warrant an extension of time. The court emphasised the importance of timely appeals and the need to adhere to statutory time limits, particularly in cases involving criminal compensation. The decision underscored the significance of correctly interpreting legislative provisions and applying them in accordance with their intended purpose.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for extension of time for leave to appeal refused.