NAS v. Schloss - [2008] QDC 215

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

NAS v Schloss [2008] QDC 215

PARTIES:

NAS

(Applicant)

v

ROY SCHLOSS

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

78/2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

7 August 2008

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Roy Schloss pay the applicant NAS the sum of $80,000.00 and costs to be assessed on a standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

Application – Criminal Compensation – Rape – Unlawful carnal knowledge – indecent dealing

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code (Qld) 1899 Ch 65A (ss 663A, 663AA, 663B and 663BA)

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 46(2).

Justices Act Amendment Act 1975

CASES:

HW v LO [2000] QCA 377 [2001] 2 Qd R 415

MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410

R v Boughton; ex parte Holt (unreported) District Court, Helman DCJ No 124/1993 – 13 August 1993

R v Jones ex parte McClintock[1996] 1 Qd R 524

R v Tiltman ex parte Dawe, Unreported, Lee J, SC no. 324/1995, 22 June 1995

SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12

W v W [2003] QDC 435

COUNSEL:

Mr J Stevenson (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Introduction

The applicant was one of three complainants in respect of a range of sexual offences contained on indictment 720/2005 on which the respondent proceeded to trial in the Ipswich District Court on 21 November 2005. Relevantly (in respect of the applicant in these criminal compensation proceedings) the indicted counts were:

Count 26:          Indecent dealing.
Count 27:          Rape (or in the alternative unlawful carnal knowledge).
Count 28:          Indecent dealing.
Count 29:          Rape (or in the alternative unlawful carnal knowledge).
Count 30:          Indecent dealing.
Count 31:          Indecent dealing.
Count 32:          Rape (or in the alternative unlawful carnal knowledge).
Count 33:          Indecent dealing.
Count 34:          Rape (or in the alternative unlawful carnal knowledge).

On 21 November 2005 the Crown entered a nolle prosequi in relation to count 31 (indecent dealing).[1] On 24 November 2005 the respondent was found guilty in respect to counts 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34 and was sentenced as follows:
[1]Exhibit A, Affidavit of Debbie Richardson sworn 22 May 2008.

Counts 26, 28, 30 and 33 – imprisonment 4 years.
Count 34 – imprisonment 12 years.
Counts 27, 29 and 32 – imprisonment 5 years.
All sentences were to be served concurrently with all other sentences imposed at the same time and also served concurrently with the sentence then currently being served by the respondent, on unrelated charges.[2] In respect of counts 27, 29 and 32 (which were indicted as rape or in the alternative unlawful carnal knowledge), the respondent was found guilty in each case of the alternative count of unlawful carnal knowledge. In respect of count 34 (which was also an indicted count of rape or in the alternative unlawful carnal knowledge) the respondent was found guilty of rape. The guilty verdicts in respect of counts 26, 28, 30 and 33 relate…

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 NAS v. Schloss

Details

AGLC: NAS v Schloss [2008] QDC 215
Case: [2008] QDC 215
Decision Date: 29 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of NAS versus Schloss, the applicant sought compensation under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1997 for trauma and loss resulting from a conviction for rape and unlawful carnal knowledge. The case was heard by Justice Brereton in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Roy Schloss, initially contested the application, but later withdrew his opposition, leaving the applicant's claims uncontested. The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's claims were valid under the Act and, if so, the appropriate quantum of compensation. The applicant's claims encompassed a range of harms, including physical, emotional, and psychological injuries, as well as the loss of opportunity to engage in meaningful relationships. The court considered the severity and impact of the crimes, the applicant's vulnerability, and the lasting effects on her life.

Justice Brereton found that the applicant's claims were valid and well-supported by evidence. The court emphasised the profound and long-lasting impact of the crimes on the applicant's mental and physical health, as well as her social and economic well-being. The severity of the crimes and the vulnerability of the applicant were critical factors in determining the appropriate compensation. The court assessed the applicant's claims comprehensively, taking into account the full extent of her injuries and losses. Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the amount of $80,000, reflecting the significant and enduring impact of the crimes on her life.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Roy Schloss pay the applicant NAS the sum of $80,000.00 and costs to be assessed on a standard basis

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:	NAS v Schloss [2008] QDC 215
PARTIES:	NAS (Applicant) v ROY SCHLOSS (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	78/2008
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	29 August 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	7 August 2008
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent Roy Schloss pay the applicant NAS the sum of $80,000.00 and costs to be assessed on a standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	Application – Criminal Compensation – Rape – Unlawful carnal knowledge – indecent dealing
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code (Qld) 1899 Ch 65A (ss 663A, 663AA, 663B and 663BA) Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 46(2). Justices Act Amendment Act 1975
CASES:	HW v LO [2000] QCA 377 [2001] 2 Qd R 415 MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410 R v Boughton; ex parte Holt (unreported) District Court, Helman DCJ No 124/1993 – 13 August 1993 R v Jones ex parte McClintock[1996] 1 Qd R 524 R v Tiltman ex parte Dawe, Unreported, Lee J, SC no. 324/1995, 22 June 1995 SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12 W v W [2003] QDC 435
COUNSEL:	Mr J Stevenson (solicitor) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant