Morrison v Lester - [2006] QSC 375

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
Morrison v Lester [2006] QSC 375

PARTIES:
ALISDAIR MORRISON
(applicant)
v
JIM LESTER
(respondent)

FILE NO/S: BS 8257 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 December 2006

JUDGES:

Mackenzie J

ORDER:

It is ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $24,000 compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant because of the offence of attempted murder committed against him by the respondent on 25 December 2001.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent was convicted at trial of attempted murder – where the applicant suffered multiple injuries to face, scalp, legs and shoulder – where the applicant seeks criminal compensation for physical and psychological injuries sustained

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s 25(4)(b), s 25(7), Sch 1.

COUNSEL:
B W Farr for the applicant
W L Hampton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Lowes & Co Solicitors for the applicant
Quinn & Scattini Lawyers for the respondent

MACKENZIE J: This is one of the rare instances of an application for criminal compensation where a respondent is represented by a legal advisor and contests certain aspects of the applicant’s claim. The respondent was convicted at trial of attempting to murder the applicant. The applicant and the respondent’s estranged wife were camping at Woodgate when the respondent drove into the camping area, drove to where they were camping and got out of his vehicle in which he had his two sons.

I assessed what happened next in the following way in my sentencing remarks. The incident seemed to have started verbally and deteriorated quickly into physical combat instigated by the prisoner, followed by use of a knife and then tent poles. The jury’s verdict implied that the respondent was the aggressor.

The knife was not taken to the site by the respondent but was one at the camp site which was picked up by him and used to stab the applicant until it broke. My sentencing reasons do not set out all of the facts in detail but there is a concise summary of them in the reasons of Davies JA in the Court of Appeal [2004] QCA 34.

Section 25(4)(b) Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) governs all of the categories of the applicant’s claim. Section 25(7) requires everything relevant to be taken into account in deciding whether compensation should be ordered and if so, what amount. It was submitted for the respondent that there should be some reduction, essentially because the applicant engaged in a verbal exchange and then physical combat with him before the knife was used. I reject that it is demonstrated that there was any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to his injury within the meaning of s 25(7). Any physical involvement on his part was essentially defensive against an attack launched on him by 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 Morrison v Lester

Details

AGLC: Morrison v Lester [2006] QSC 375
Case: [2006] QSC 375
Decision Date: 13 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morrison v Lester involved a case where the respondent was convicted of attempted murder against the applicant, Morrison. The incident occurred on 25 December 2001, and resulted in Morrison suffering multiple injuries to his face, scalp, legs, and shoulder, as well as significant psychological trauma. Following the conviction, Morrison applied for criminal compensation under the provisions of the relevant legislation to recover for the physical and psychological injuries sustained. The case was heard in the appropriate Queensland court, which was required to determine the amount of compensation, if any, to be awarded to Morrison.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Morrison was entitled to criminal compensation and, if so, what amount would adequately reflect the extent of the harm suffered. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Morrison, both physical and psychological, as well as the statutory criteria for awarding compensation under the applicable Queensland legislation. The court also needed to balance the principle of fairness in compensating victims of crime with the financial implications of the award on the respondent.

In determining the appropriate compensation, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented regarding the injuries and their impact on Morrison’s life. The court recognised the severity of the injuries and the long-term effects on Morrison’s physical and mental health. After weighing all the evidence, the court concluded that Morrison was entitled to compensation for the harm suffered. The court awarded Morrison $24,000 in compensation, reflecting the substantial impact of the injuries on his life. This decision underscores the importance of compensating victims for the consequences of criminal acts, providing some measure of redress for the harm inflicted.

Orders

Orders of the court

It is ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $24,000 compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant because of the offence of attempted murder committed against him by the respondent on 25 December 2001.

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.

CITATION:	Morrison v Lester [2006] QSC 375
PARTIES:	ALISDAIR MORRISON (applicant) v JIM LESTER (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 8257 of 2006
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	13 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 December 2006
JUDGES:	Mackenzie J
ORDER:	It is ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $24,000 compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant because of the offence of attempted murder committed against him by the respondent on 25 December 2001.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent was convicted at trial of attempted murder – where the applicant suffered multiple injuries to face, scalp, legs and shoulder – where the applicant seeks criminal compensation for physical and psychological injuries sustained Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s 25(4)(b), s 25(7), Sch 1.
COUNSEL:	B W Farr for the applicant W L Hampton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Lowes & Co Solicitors for the applicant Quinn & Scattini Lawyers for the respondent