Michael Dryden v David John Jones

[2018] NSWDC 223

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Michael Dryden v David John Jones [2018] NSWDC 223
Hearing dates:	8 August 2018
Date of orders:	17 August 2018
Decision date:	17 August 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Damages assessed
Catchwords:	ASSESSMENT – damages for sexual assaults – aggravated damages.
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Civil Liability Act 2002 Crimes Act 1900 Victims Rights and Support Act 2013
Cases Cited:	Gray v The Motor Accident Commission (1998-1999) 196 CLR 1 M v Nesbitt [2010] NSWDC 152 MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657 Shalhoub v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWDC 363 XY v Featherstone [2010] NSWSC 1366
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Michael Dryden (Plaintiff) David John Jones (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr R O’Keefe (for the Plaintiff)   Solicitors: Ms K Young (for the Plaintiff) David John Jones (Unrepresented Defendant)
File Number(s):	2018/00064600

Judgment

1. The plaintiff, after receiving the advice of counsel, consented to publication of his name: s15B & 15D Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.

Introduction/Background

2. In May 2013 the defendant, David John Jones, was charged with 9 counts of homosexual intercourse with a child: s 78K Crimes Act 1900, as it then was. The complainant in the criminal proceedings was Michael Dryden. He was born on 16 August 1976. The criminal charges related to events between 1989 and 1991 when the plaintiff was about 13 or 14 years old. At the relevant time David John Jones was an adult and a close friend of the plaintiff's step-father. In 2014 David John Jones came before the District Court in its criminal jurisdiction. He accepted his guilt to, and was convicted of, the nine counts. He served terms of imprisonment.

3. On 4 June 2018, at the District Court Wollongong, default judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff against David John Jones, the defendant. The claim related to compensation for damages for injury and other loss arising from intentional torts, being the various sexual assaults committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff between 1989 and 1991. Aggravated damages are also sought.

4. It is recognised, particularly in matters such as this, that an award of damages could never restore the plaintiff to his position he was pre-injury. Money of itself cannot compensate for the pain and suffering resulting from sexual assaults committed by an adult on a child. The amount awarded is intended to be fair to both parties but fairness to the defendant does not mean that the award should be less than full or adequate.

The proceedings

5. The plaintiff was represented by Mr O'Keefe of counsel. The defendant appeared for himself.

6. The plaintiff's comprehensive affidavit was exhibit 1. The plaintiff also gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. Given the defendant was not represented I asked perhaps more questions of the plaintiff than would otherwise be the case. I also reformulated into question form what would otherwise be regarded propositions. The plaintiff's wife, Cindy Dryden, gave evidence. She was not cross-examined.…