M.R. (appellant) v WEBB, Eric Malcolm (respondent)
FILE NOS:
Appeal No 4166 of 2000 DC No 1109 of 2000
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
27 March 2001
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
6 March 2001
JUDGES:
McPherson and Williams JJA, Wilson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:
Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW-ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY-COMPENSATION-QUEENSLAND- Compensation for child victim of sexual offence-whether award manifestly inadequate-whether award should be made for physical injuries-whether compensation should be assessed under heading “totality of adverse impacts of sexual offence” rather than mental or nervous shock
McPHERSON JA: I have read the reasons of Wilson J. I agree with them. The appeal should be dismissed.
WILLIAMS JA: For the reasons given by Wilson J, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.
WILSON J: This is an appeal, pursuant to leave given by the Court of Appeal on 30 May 2000, against an award of criminal compensation made by a District Court judge.
The appellant was born on 5 August 1992. When she was aged 5 years her maternal grandfather (who was then aged 74) unlawfully and indecently dealt with her by digitally penetrating her vagina. On 9 June 1998 he pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 1 year’s imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of 2 years.
Subsequently an application for criminal compensation was made, and on 14 April 2000 compensation was assessed in the sum of $15,000.00, being the top end of the range applicable to moderate mental or nervous shock.
The appeal has been brought on three broad grounds –
(a) that the compensation should have been assessed under the heading “totality of adverse impacts of sexual offence” rather than mental or nervous shock;
(b) that there ought to have been an award for physical injuries;
(c) that the award was manifestly inadequate.
The Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) provides a scheme for the payment of compensation for injury caused by an indictable offence committed against the person of the applicant (s 19). “Injury” is defined in s 20 as bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any…
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 MR v Webb
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
MR v Webb [2001] QCA 113
Case
[2001] QCA 113
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in MR v Webb was brought by the respondent, seeking to challenge the compensation awarded to the appellant, MR, who was a victim of a sexual offence committed by the respondent, Webb. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the appellant contested the adequacy of the compensation awarded under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The appellant argued that the award was manifestly inadequate and that the compensation should include an award for physical injuries and be assessed under the heading "totality of adverse impacts of sexual offence" rather than just mental or nervous shock.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the compensation award was manifestly inadequate, if physical injuries should be compensated, and if the compensation should be assessed under the heading "totality of adverse impacts of sexual offence." The court needed to interpret the relevant statutory provisions and consider previous cases and regulations to determine the correct approach to assessing compensation for victims of sexual offences.
The court examined the statutory framework and relevant case law, including Dooley v Ward, Kepple v Lafragua, Sanderson v Kajewski, and Whyte v Robinson. The court held that the compensation award was not manifestly inadequate and that there was no basis to order a new assessment. The court found that physical injuries were not relevant in this case and that the compensation should be assessed under the heading of mental or nervous shock. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no grounds to interfere with the original decision.
The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed, and no new assessment of compensation would be ordered. The court confirmed the original compensation award as appropriate and sufficient in the circumstances.