Newman v Neville - [2010] QDC 257

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Newman v Neville [2010] QDC 257

PARTIES:

KEVIN MICHAEL NEWMAN
(Applicant)

v

MARK LAURENCE NEVILLE
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

142/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

23 March and 29 April 2010

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Mark Laurence Neville pay the applicant Kevin Michael Newman the sum of $51,000.00

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – unlawful wounding –

LEGISLATION:

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld)

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)

CASES:

Kennedy v Faafeu [2010] QDC 21

Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214

COUNSEL:

Ms S Thompson for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Swanwick Murray Roche Lawyers for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

The respondent, Mark Laurence Neville pleaded guilty in the Beenleigh District Court on 20 August 2009 to one count of unlawful wounding in respect of the applicant Kevin Michael Newman. The respondent was sentenced by Judge Irwin to three years’ imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at 20 August 2009 (the respondent having served 349 days in pre-sentence custody up to the date of sentence).

Facts

The respondent and Sarah Ellis were involved in a relationship between 2003 and December 2007 and a son was born to that relationship in 2004. After the relationship between the respondent and Ms Ellis finished, Ms Ellis began a relationship with the applicant. After the respondent found out about this relationship, he sent numerous abusive and threatening text messages to the applicant, threatening variously to do some violence to or kill the applicant, and telling the applicant to stay away from Ms Ellis. On a Wednesday prior to the incident, the respondent came to the home of the applicant and Ms Ellis, and told the applicant “I told you to stay away from her and I’m going to kill you”. The applicant was at the relevant time on parole and failed to report for a parole appointment as he was afraid the respondent or his associates would do him harm.

At the same time, the applicant was also threatening to kill the respondent. The applicant had told Ms Ellis that the respondent was in the way of them having a happy relationship, and he planned to buy a gun with some tax return money he was expecting and to kill the respondent. That plan had progressed to the applicant talking to someone over the phone, and the applicant advised Ms Ellis that the person was selling him a gun for the purpose of killing the respondent. The applicant had talked about this with Ms Ellis several times and convinced her that he was serious. At some stage, Ms Ellis saw the applicant with a black pistol and heard the applicant threatening the respondent over the phone that he was going to shoot him dead. Ms Ellis told the respondent about the applicant’s plan and that she had seen him with…

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 Newman v Neville

Details

AGLC: Newman v Neville [2010] QDC 257
Case: [2010] QDC 257
Decision Date: 18 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kevin Michael Newman, the applicant, versus Mark Laurence Neville, the respondent, the court was presented with a case concerning a dispute over criminal compensation for unlawful wounding. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, Mr Newman, sought compensation for injuries sustained during an altercation with the respondent, Mr Neville. The specific dispute involved the assessment and quantum of the compensation to be awarded to Mr Newman for the physical and psychological harm he suffered.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of compensation for Mr Newman's injuries. This involved examining the extent of the injuries, including both physical wounds and psychological impact, and evaluating the impact on Mr Newman's quality of life. The court also had to consider whether the injuries were directly attributable to the actions of Mr Neville and assess the financial implications of these injuries.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court determined that the injuries sustained by Mr Newman were directly caused by Mr Neville's actions and that the quantum of compensation should reflect the full extent of Mr Newman's physical and psychological injuries. The court concluded that the appropriate compensation to be awarded was $51,000.00. This sum was deemed sufficient to cover the costs associated with Mr Newman's medical treatment, rehabilitation, and the impact on his daily life and future earning capacity.

The court ordered that the respondent, Mr Neville, pay the applicant, Mr Newman, the sum of $51,000.00 as compensation for the injuries sustained. This order was based on the findings that the injuries were a direct result of Mr Neville's unlawful actions and that the compensation amount adequately reflected the harm caused to Mr Newman.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Mark Laurence Neville pay the applicant Kevin Michael Newman the sum of $51,000.00

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:	Newman v Neville [2010] QDC 257
PARTIES:	KEVIN MICHAEL NEWMAN (Applicant) v MARK LAURENCE NEVILLE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	142/09
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	18 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Kingaroy
HEARING DATE:	23 March and 29 April 2010
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent Mark Laurence Neville pay the applicant Kevin Michael Newman the sum of $51,000.00
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – unlawful wounding –
LEGISLATION:	Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld)
CASES:	Kennedy v Faafeu [2010] QDC 21 Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214
COUNSEL:	Ms S Thompson for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Swanwick Murray Roche Lawyers for the applicant No appearance for the respondent