NLK v CSP

[2004] QDC 507

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

NLK v CSP & Anor [2004] QDC 507

PARTIES:

NLK

Applicant

v

CSP

Respondent

NLK

Applicant

v

DOUGLAS HENRY CROWHURST

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD1890/2004;  BD1891/2004

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 July, 30 November 2004

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

1.  Order that the respondent CSP pay the applicant $16,500 by way of compensation.

2.  Order that the respondent Crowhurst pay the applicant $13,500 by way of compensation.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – multiple offenders – substantially single state of injury – offences committed separately – orders against respondents to be scaled.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 26.

COUNSEL:

J Stevenson (solicitor) for the applicant (26 July)
J Fadden (solicitor) for the applicant (30 November)
The respondents did not appear

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
The respondents were not represented.

1. These are two applications for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”). The injuries relied on are mental or nervous shock, and the deemed injury under the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation. They reveal an unusual situation, because the applicant had the particular misfortune to be sexually abused whilst a child by two separate individuals, who are the two respondents. A separate application for compensation has been brought against each, and neither respondent has appeared to resist the applications. This gives rise to an issue as to how applications of this nature are to be approached.

1. The respondent CSP was on 19 February 2003 convicted on a plea of guilty of eight counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years occurring between 5 September 2001 and 6 October 2001, one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years on 12 October 2001, and two counts of attempted incest between 5 September 2001 and 6 October 2001.  In each case the offence was committed against the applicant.  The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.  A compensation order may be made against the respondent because of any injuries suffered by her because of the offences:  s 24.

1. The respondent Crowhurst was convicted on a plea of guilty on 14 February 2003 of five counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, which offences were alleged to have occurred between 1 July 1999 and 29 October 2001, all at Stafford Heights and Nudgee.  In each case the offence was committed against the applicant.  A term of imprisonment was imposed.  Again, the court may make an order for the respondent to pay compensation to the applicant because of any injuries suffered by her because of the offences.

1. The respondent Crowhurst was a friend of the applicant’s family.  The offences in his case involved touching the applicant on the breasts, and digital penetration of the vagina.  The respondent CSP was the applicant’s maternal grandfather;  his offences began with touching the applicant on the breasts and progressed to digital penetration, and then two occasions of…