DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] QDC 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.