Parry v. Stappas

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parry v Stappas [2007] QDC 019

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER AUSTIN NELSON PARRY

Applicant

V

ANTONIOS STAPPAS

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

44/06

DIVISION:

Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 November 2006

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $10,125.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Beenleigh on 11 June 2003.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – assault occasioning bodily harm – laceration – minor scarring – mental or nervous shock – applicant’s contribution to own injuries by act of provocation.

Criminal offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 25(6) and (7) and 31.

Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.

COUNSEL:

Mr P. A. Curbishley appeared for the applicant

Ms K. Forrester appeared for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Compass Legal Solutions for the applicant

Affleck Lawton for the respondent

Introduction:

  1. In this application Christopher Austin Nelson Parry (“the applicant”) 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 Antonios Stappas (“the respondent”), who was convicted by the District Court at Beenleigh on 11 June 2003 for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed to the applicant on 20 September 2001 at Woodridge in the State of Queensland.

  1. The respondent was served with the application and supporting documents and was represented at the hearing of the application on 8 November 2006 by counsel.

  1. 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 27 March 2006 and filed in this court on 21 April 2006;

(b)        The affidavit with exhibits of Ross William Summers, solicitor, sworn 27 March 2006 and filed in this court on 21 April 2006;

(c)        The affidavit with exhibit of John Humphrey Morris, orthopaedic surgeon, sworn 3 October 2006 and filed in this court on 3 November 2006;

(d)        The affidavit with exhibit of Malcolm Paul McEnery, psychologist, sworn 18 September 2006 and filed in this court on 3 November 2006.

  1. The respondent gave notice to the applicant that he required the applicant and the deponent Malcolm Paul McEnery respectively to be cross‑examined at the hearing.

Facts:

  1. The circumstances of the offence were that the applicant was driving his motor vehicle along a suburban road on 20 September 2001 when he was closely followed by the respondent’s vehicle.  The applicant “touched the brakes just to get him off my bumper”, at which the respondent swerved around the applicant’s vehicle to the right and the applicant then gesticulated to him.

  1. The applicant subsequently pulled into a car park at a near‑by shopping centre and the respondent stopped his vehicle immediately behind the applicant’s vehicle so that the applicant was…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parry v. Stappas and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] QDC 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parry v. Stappas involved a claim for criminal injury compensation, following an incident where the respondent was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm. The applicant, Parry, sought compensation for a laceration that resulted in minor scarring and mental or nervous shock, which the respondent, Stappas, caused. Parry also argued that his contribution to the injuries, through acts of provocation, should not preclude his entitlement to compensation. The court was tasked with determining the extent of Parry's injuries and the appropriate compensation, considering the mitigating factor of Parry's own actions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Parry's contribution to the incident through acts of provocation should bar his entitlement to compensation for the injuries sustained. The court had to balance the statutory criteria for criminal injury compensation against Parry's own role in the altercation. This involved interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and assessing the proportionality of the compensation in light of Parry's involvement.

In determining the matter, the court found that Parry's injuries, though exacerbated by his own actions, still warranted compensation. The court emphasised that the statutory scheme for criminal injury compensation aimed to provide relief to victims of crime, even if they contributed to the situation. The court assessed the severity of the injuries, the psychological impact, and the financial implications for Parry, ultimately concluding that a partial reduction in compensation was appropriate. The court ordered Stappas to pay Parry $10,125.00, reflecting the reduced amount due to Parry's contributory fault.

The court's decision underscored the importance of a fair and balanced approach to criminal injury compensation, taking into account both the victim's injuries and their role in the events leading to the crime. The order for Stappas to pay Parry $10,125.00 represented a nuanced application of the statutory criteria, recognising the need to support victims while also considering their contributory actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $10,125.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by the District Court at Beenleigh on 11 June 2003.

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.