DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
PARTIES:
PETER JAMES OXENFORD
(Applicant)
v
DARRYL PAUL COOLWELL
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
D93 of 2005
DIVISION:
Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:
Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:
24 February 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 November 2005
JUDGE:
Tutt DCJ
ORDER:
That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $21,000.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by this court on 17 February 2005.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal compensation – assault occasioning bodily harm – including bruising and lacerations – compensation Schedule 1 – mental or nervous shock.
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss. 24, 25(6) and (7) and 31.
Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.
SOLICITORS:
Mr D J Hutchings of Gilshenan & Luton for the applicant.
No appearance for the respondent.
Introduction
The applicant, Peter James Oxenford, claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for bodily injury he sustained arising out of the criminal conduct of the respondent, Darryl Paul Coolwell, who was convicted by the District Court at Beenleigh on 17 February 2005 for a miscellany of offences including the offence of armed robbery with personal violence to the applicant on 2 April 2004. The respondent is currently serving a term of imprisonment and was served with the application and supporting material but made no appearance at the hearing.[1]
[1] See affidavit of service of Dale Morrow sworn 23 September 2005 and filed by leave.
The application for compensation is made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:-
(a) the affidavit with exhibits of the applicant, sworn 25 July 2005 and filed at Beenleigh on 22 August 2005;
(b) three affidavits with exhibits of Lena Gatti, paralegal sworn 5 August 2005 and filed at Beenleigh on 22 August 2005; sworn 16 November 2005 and filed 17 November 2005 and sworn 17 November 2005 and filed 18 November 2005 respectively; and
(c) the affidavits with exhibits of Ian Lynagh, consultant psychologist, sworn 4 July 2005 and filed at Beenleigh on 22 August 2005..
Facts
The applicant is a police officer aged 39 years. At the time of the incident he was off duty and was resting at his home. He was awakened by his wife who informed him that she had seen a person of Aboriginal appearance entering his mother’s home which was several blocks away. He ran up to his mother’s house and entered. He then encountered the respondent who was armed with a car key which the respondent used as a weapon against the applicant. A struggle ensued between the applicant and the respondent during which the applicant was aided by his wife and mother. The applicant wrestled and struggled with the respondent and during the struggle the applicant was…
Continue reading Oxenford v Coolwell
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Oxenford v Coolwell [2006] QDC 30
- Case
- [2006] QDC 30
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the applicant, including the bruising and lacerations, and whether they were caused by the respondent's actions. The court also considered the evidence regarding the mental or nervous shock experienced by the applicant as a result of the assault. The court found that the applicant had suffered significant bruising and lacerations, as well as mental or nervous shock, as a result of the assault. The court was satisfied that the injuries were caused by the respondent's actions and that they were of a nature that would warrant compensation under the Compensation Schedule 1.
The court awarded the applicant the sum of $21,000.00 by way of compensation for the injuries caused by the respondent. The court considered the extent of the injuries, the impact on the applicant's life, and the need for compensation to cover medical expenses, lost wages, and other costs associated with the injuries. The court also noted that the compensation was not intended to be punitive but rather to provide some measure of relief to the applicant for the harm suffered. The court ordered that the respondent pay the compensation to the applicant within a specified period.
Orders
Orders of the court
That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $21,000.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by this court on 17 February 2005.
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.