Milosavljevic v Clark

[2009] QDC 144

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Milosavljevic v Clark  [2009] QDC 144

PARTIES:

ZORAN MILOSAVLJEVIC

(Applicant)

v

SYDNEY JAMES CLARK

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

174/08

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland, Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2009

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

Order that the Respondent, SYDNEY JAMES CLARK, pay the Applicant, ZORAN MILOSAVLJEVIC, the sum of $23,250.00.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – Unlawful wounding – Moderate stab wounds – Acid burns – Mental or nervous shock – Pre-existing depressive condition

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act (Qld) 1995 ss 22(4), 24, 25, 26

CASES:

R v Clark [2008] QCA 51

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436

Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220

Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148

COUNSEL:              Mr A Maher for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:          Trilby Misso, solicitors for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

[1] The applicant, Zoran Milosavljevic, seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him arising from an incident which occurred on 31 October 2003 at Slacks Creek.

[2] The respondent, Sydney James Clark, was convicted after a five day trial before me of unlawfully wounding the applicant.  The respondent was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after four months, with a two year operational period.  This sentence was upheld on appeal (R v Clark [2008] QCA 51).

THE FACTS

[3] The facts were conveniently summarised by McKenzie AJA in the respondent's Court of Appeal judgment as follows:-

"The [respondent] was 55 at the time of the offence.  The [applicant] was 31.  The [respondent] conducted a business in one of several industrial sheds at Slacks Creek.  The [applicant] was employed as a furniture removalist for a business that operated from a nearby shed.  There had been friction over parking issues in the area although not necessarily between [the applicant] and the [respondent] personally.

Shortly before the offence was committed the [applicant] had parked his van and gone to get instructions about his tasks for the day.  When he came back he found a utility parked so close to it that he was unable to drive it away so that he might go about his work.  He found out that the utility was the [respondent's] and went to his premises.  He asked the [respondent] to move the utility.  When the [respondent] said words to the effect that he did not intend to do so because he was tired of trucks parking where the [applicant] had parked, the [applicant] said he was going to move his truck and if it hit the [respondent's] vehicle it would be the [respondent's] fault.  The [applicant] then left the premises.

Findings of fact were made by the trial Judge prior to sentencing the [respondent].  In summary, what happened was that as the [applicant] walked off the [respondent] hurried after him.  The [applicant] heard him say something and turned around then the [respondent]…