Newman v Smith

[2007] QDC 129

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Newman v Smith [2007] QDC 129

PARTIES:

Mark Raymond Newman
Applicant
v
Neil Scott Smith
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

D1/2007

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

19 April, 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2007

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Neil Scott Smith pay the applicant Mark Raymond Newman the sum of $24,750

CATCHWORDS:

Application – Criminal Compensation – Grievous Bodily Harm – Bruising – Fractured Nose - Facial Fracture – Mental or Nervous Shock

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 22(4), 24, 25(7), 26 and 30(2)

Cases cited:
R v Ward ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qld R 436
Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337
Lewis v Williams [2005] QCA 314

COUNSEL:

Mr K Murdoch (solicitor) for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Woods Murdoch Solicitors for the applicant

Introduction

1. The applicant Mark Newman seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him arising out of an incident which occurred on 15^th July 2004 at Nanango, resulting in the respondent Neil Smith pleading guilty before Senior Judge Trafford-Walker in the Kingaroy District Court on 14 November 2005 to one count of grievous bodily harm.  The respondent was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of two years.

Facts

1. The respondent is married to the applicant’s wife’s daughter (i.e. the applicant’s step daughter) and the incident which lead to the applicant’s injury occurred on the night before the funeral of the mother of the applicant’s wife.  A group of family members was to have arrived at the residence of the applicant and his wife to speak to the priest conducting the funeral service the next day, but the family members did not arrive as arranged at 7.30pm.  The priest stayed until 9.30pm discussing funeral arrangements with the applicant, his wife, and another relative, but then left.

1. Shortly after the priest left, five family members arrived at the applicant’s residence and knocked on the back door where the patio light was on.  The applicant’s wife, Marianne, answered the door and she was quickly followed by the applicant and another relative, Richard Peacock, who was staying with the applicant and his wife.  There was a verbal argument between one of the family group, Jeffery Peacock, and the applicant’s wife. 

1. The applicant was so concerned about the altercation between Jeffery Peacock and the applicant’s wife, Marianne, that he placed himself between his wife and Jeffery Peacock to ensure that she would not be hurt.  The applicant indicated that Jeffery Peacock was not welcome, that he had to leave and placed his hand on Jeffery Peacock’s shoulder to encourage him to leave.  Jeffery Peacock then struck the applicant twice to the right side of his face, firstly with a “king hit” and then again to the applicant’s jaw.  The applicant attempted to defend himself, and the respondent then entered the fray.  The respondent struck the applicant with…