P v B

The case of P v B, heard in the District Court of Queensland, involved a dispute concerning the compensation available to the applicant for injuries suffered prior to the 1984 amendments to the relevant legislation, with the conviction for the offence occurring after the amendments. The applicant sought compensation under the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (Qld), arguing that the prescribed amount for compensation should reflect the value prior to the 1984 amendments, which introduced limits on multiple claims. The court was tasked with determining the applicable prescribed amount for compensation and the point at which the right to compensation arose, in light of the legislative changes and the divergence of judicial opinion regarding the retrospective application of the 1984 amendments.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of sections 20(2)(c) and 20(2)(e) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) in relation to the retrospective application of the 1984 amendments to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983. The court had to consider whether the amendments, which introduced limits on multiple claims, could apply to claims for injuries occurring before their enactment. The case also required the court to examine the reasoning of various judges in earlier cases, such as Boughton v Holt, Chong v Chong, and others, to determine the correct approach to the retrospective application of legislative changes in the context of criminal compensation.

The court, after reviewing the applicable legal principles and the relevant case law, concluded that the 1984 amendments did not apply retrospectively. The reasoning was based on the principle that a cause of action for compensation did not exist until the conviction, and therefore, the applicant's right to compensation accrued at the time of injury. The court found that the amendments did not affect the applicant's right to compensation for the injuries suffered prior to the legislative changes. The court also noted the consistency in the approach taken by various judges in similar cases, who had held that the 1984 amendments did not operate retrospectively. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $39,000.00 by way of compensation, along with an order for the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $39,000.00 as compensation for the injuries suffered and that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application, to be agreed upon or assessed on the standard basis.