DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
MCT v JSM [2011] QDC 118
PARTIES:
MCT
(Applicant)
v
JSM
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
3281/09
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
3 June, 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:
29 April 2011 (Beenleigh)
JUDGE:
Dearden DCJ
ORDER:
That the respondent JSM pay the applicant MCT the sum of $35,250
CATCHWORDS:
Application – criminal compensation – indecent treatment – bruising – mental or nervous shock – adverse impacts
CASES:
LEGISLATION:
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s. 25(7)
Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s.167(2)
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) s.1A
COUNSEL:
Ms R A Christopherson (solicitor) for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Nathan Lawyers, solicitors for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
Introduction
The applicant, MCT, seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by her arising out of offences committed against her by the respondent JSM between 1 July 1996 and 1 March 1998 at Waterford West, Queensland. The respondent pleaded guilty on 22 July 2008, and was sentenced on 11 November 2008, to three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care. The complainant in respect of all counts was the applicant. In respect of count 1, the respondent was sentenced to six months imprisonment and three years probation; in respect of counts 2-4, the respondent was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (concurrent) suspended after serving six months imprisonment, with an operational period of three years.[1]
[1] Exhibit TM-C08 (Sentencing Remarks), Affidavit of MCT sworn 5 July 2010.
Facts
The applicant was born in July 1984 and went to live with her father in July 1996 at a house in Waterford West, Queensland where the respondent was her father’s boarder.
Count 1 (Indecent treatment of a child under 16) – 1 July 1996 – 1 March 1998
“In the early afternoon, the [respondent] was standing in the kitchen with the [applicant]. The [respondent] was standing behind her and began rubbing her chest with one of his hands. The [respondent] then put the ice cubes down her shirt and rubbed the ice into her breast through her top.”
Count 2 (Indecent treatment of a child under 16) – 1 July 1996 – March 1998
“One Saturday morning, the [respondent] was downstairs in the lounge-room, sitting on the cream ribbed lounge. The [applicant] sat on the couch next to him and he laid her on her back. He then lay on top of her. He placed his lower body between her legs and began to thrust his penis into the area of her vagina. She remembers what felt like his hard penis being rubbed against her vagina area. They both remained fully clothed.
The [respondent] was interrupted by a knock at the front door and it was a man and his son who had arrived to view a green Holden Torana that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read MCT v JSM 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 118
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the injuries sustained by the applicant were a result of the respondent's actions, whether the injuries were of a severity warranting compensation, and whether the applicant suffered mental or nervous shock as a result of the incident. Additionally, the court had to determine if the injuries had an adverse impact on the applicant's life, which would entitle them to compensation under the relevant legislation.
The court found that the applicant's injuries were indeed caused by the respondent's actions and were of sufficient severity to warrant compensation. The court also determined that the applicant had suffered mental or nervous shock as a result of the incident, which had an adverse impact on their life. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the physical injuries, as well as for the mental or nervous shock experienced. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $35,250 as compensation for the injuries and the impact on their life.
Orders
Orders of the court
That the respondent JSM pay the applicant MCT the sum of $35,250
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.