DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
MBA v JFB [2011] QDC 57
PARTIES:
MBA
(Applicant)v
JFB
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
40/2010
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:
8 April, 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:
23 December 2010 & 11 March 2011
JUDGE:
Dearden DCJ
ORDER:
The respondent JFB pay the applicant MBA the sum of $18,750.
CATCHWORDS:
Application – Criminal Compensation – Indecent treatment – Mental or nervous shock – Adverse impacts
LEGISLATION:
Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 s.24
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 s. 1A.
Victims of Crime Assistance Act2009 ss. 154 and 155
CASES:
COUNSEL:
Ms C Williams (23 December 2010) and Mr E Muir (11 March 2011) for the applicant
The respondent appeared self represented
SOLICITORS:
Muir Lawyers for the applicant
The respondent appeared self represented
Introduction
The respondent, JFB, pleaded guilty in the Beenleigh District Court on 12 March 2008 to one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, in respect of the applicant MBA. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order.
Facts
The offence occurred on 23 February 2007, when the applicant was 14 years old. The respondent, who is the applicant’s uncle, was 43 old years at the time. The applicant was staying the weekend with the respondent and his young daughters (the applicant’s cousins). When the respondent and the applicant arrived at the respondent’s residence, the applicant assisted the respondent tidying the house before sitting down to watch television. The respondent complained of a sore back and the applicant offered to give him a massage which he accepted. The respondent then offered the applicant a back massage which she accepted.
The applicant and the respondent moved to the computer room where the respondent massaged the applicant’s feet and legs. The respondent then moved his hands up the applicant’s thighs towards her groin, pushed her underpants to one side with one hand and touched her vagina with the other hand. The applicant asked the respondent to stop and he desisted in his actions. The applicant jumped up and went to the bedroom where she was to sleep the night with the respondent’s children. The applicant rang her mother and step-father and told them what had occurred. A short time later the applicant’s step-father arrived and took her home.[1]
[1] Exhibit CW 1 (Schedule of facts) Affidavit of Chrissy Williams sworn 25 August 2010.
Injuries
The applicant suffered mental or nervous shock, and adverse impacts[2] as a result of the offence committed by the respondent.
[2]Criminal Offence Victims Regulation s.1A.
The Law
The proceedings were commenced by way of an Originating Application filed 28 January 2010, purporting to be taken in the name of the applicant MBA. However, MBA’s date of birth (31 May 1992)[3] indicates that the applicant was under the age of 18 (and therefore under a legal disability) at the time the proceedings…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read MBA v JFB and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] QDC 57
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address were whether JFB's actions indeed constituted indecent treatment, and if so, whether the mental or nervous shock experienced by MBA was a direct result of those actions. The court had to consider the extent of the adverse impacts on MBA's mental health and evaluate the evidence presented regarding the severity and duration of the shock. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the compensation sought by MBA was reasonable and commensurate with the harm suffered.
The court found that JFB's actions did indeed constitute indecent treatment, and the mental or nervous shock experienced by MBA was a direct consequence of these actions. The evidence presented demonstrated significant adverse impacts on MBA's mental health, warranting compensation. After evaluating the severity and duration of the shock, as well as the overall harm suffered, the court determined that the sum of $18,750 was a fair and appropriate compensation for MBA's losses.
The court ordered that JFB pay MBA the sum of $18,750 as compensation for the harm caused by the indecent treatment. This decision recognised the significant impact of JFB's actions on MBA's mental health and provided a measure of redress for the distress and suffering endured.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent JFB pay the applicant MBA the sum of $18,750.
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.