NEP v Buxton

Case [2008] QDC 282


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

NEP v Buxton [2008] QDC 282

PARTIES:

    NEP  (Applicant)

    AND

     PETER ANTHONY BUXTON 

 (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D193/2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

4.12.2008

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

28.11.2008

JUDGE:

Judge J.M. Robertson

ORDER:

Order the Respondent Peter Anthony Buxton to pay the Applicant NEP by way of compensation under the Scheme, the amount of $15,000.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Compensation, whether applicant has established a mental or nervous shock injury because of offence.

Cases Considered:
HW v LO  [2000] QCA 377; [2001] 2 Qd.R. 415
JI v AV [2001] QCA 510; [2002]2 Qd R 367
SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462

Legislation:

Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995
Criminal Offence Victim Regulations 1997

COUNSEL:

Mr. Stubbins (for the Applicant)

Mr. Kimmins and with him Mr. James (for the Respondent)

SOLICITORS:

Law Essentials (for the Applicant)

McCormick Lawyers (for the Respondent)

  1. NEP applies for a compensation order pursuant to s24(4) of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 (“the COVA”) as a consequence of injury allegedly suffered by her as a result of two episodes of sexual offending committed by Peter Anthony Buxton in the Maroochydore Watch house in 2005. Mr. Buxton was then a serving police officer on duty at the watch house and NEP was a prisoner in his care and custody. She also claims that she has suffered adverse impacts of the sexual offences in terms of s1A of the Criminal Offence Victim Regulations 1997 (“the Regulations”).

THE OFFENCES

  1. On the 20.7.07 Mr. Buxton pleaded guilty to 24 offences of a sexual natue including 8 involving NEP. The offences involving her were committed on two occasions on 1.1.05 and 3.10.05. His offending conduct was described at the sentencing hearing in this way:

“These offences were committed on NEP on the 31st of January 2005.  She was 23 years of age at the time.  On that date, 31st of January, she was escorted from the Brisbane Women's Correctional Centre to the Maroochydore Watch-house.  She was en route to a Court appearance in Maryborough.

She arrived at the watch-house around lunchtime on that date, and was to stay at the watch-house for that afternoon and for part of the night.  She was the only female in the watch-house on that day.  When she got to the watch-house, she asked the defendant, who was on duty, and on duty he wore his police uniform, obviously, if she could have a smoke.  He told her that she would have to wait until the boss left.

Then, later, sometime before dinner, NEP believes that it was around 4 o'clock, the defendant came to her cell and asked if she wanted a smoke.  She said, "Yes."  And was then taken from her cell to the internal vehicle loading bay.  And that's the loading bay on that photograph that's still up on the screen.

He took her past the charge counter into the loading bay and had her stand up against…

Continue reading NEP v Buxton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
NEP v Buxton [2008] QDC 282
Case
[2008] QDC 282
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of NEP v Buxton, the applicant, NEP, sought compensation under the Criminal Offences Victims Scheme for a mental or nervous shock injury sustained as a result of criminal offences committed by the respondent, Peter Anthony Buxton. The dispute was adjudicated by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central legal issues before the court involved whether the applicant had indeed established a mental or nervous shock injury attributable to the respondent's actions, and if so, whether this warranted compensation under the statutory scheme.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and applicable precedents to ascertain the validity of NEP's claims. It was essential to determine if the injuries met the stringent criteria for compensation under the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 and the Criminal Offence Victim Regulations 1997. Relevant cases such as HW v LO, JI v AV, and SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) were considered to frame the legal standards for assessing the applicant's mental injury and its nexus to the respondent's criminal conduct. The court focused on the factual circumstances and expert testimonies provided to ascertain the legitimacy of the claimed injury.

Upon thorough deliberation, the court concluded that NEP had indeed established a mental or nervous shock injury as a result of the respondent's criminal activities. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to meet the statutory criteria for compensation. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant NEP the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation under the Scheme. This decision underscores the importance of precise and compelling evidence in establishing claims for mental injuries under the specified statutory framework.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order the Respondent Peter Anthony Buxton to pay the Applicant NEP by way of compensation under the Scheme, the amount of $15,000.

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.