Parsons v Mitchell

Case [2013] QDC 57

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parsons v Mitchell [2013] QDC 57

PARTIES:

KEIRNAN JAMES PARSONS

(Applicant)

V

LUKE DANIEL MITCHELL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3570 of 2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 March 2013 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2013

JUDGE:

Irwin DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $21, 000 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of grievous bodily harm, which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Brisbane on 10 June 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS - TIME - DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING - where the applicant commenced proceedings under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) on 9 December 2009 - where on 16 February 2010 the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the respondent enclosing - affidavits to be relied upon in support of the application - where on 18 July 2011 the applicant’s solicitor disclosed to the respondent’s solicitor a medical report about the respondent to be relied on in support of the application - where on 21 October 2011 two further medical reports relied upon in support of the application were forwarded to the respondent’s solicitor - whether the delivery of these documents constituted a step in the action - whether, in the event the delivery of these documents did not constitute a step in the action, leave should be granted to the applicant to proceed.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT - ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION , REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY - COMPENSATION - QUEENSLAND - application for criminal compensation - where the respondent was convicted of grievous bodily harm - where the applicant suffered physical injuries - where as a result of a single blow the applicant suffered bruising over an eye, swelling over his cheek bone, a fracture of the nasal bone which required surgical repair and a left orbital floor fracture which also required surgical repair- whether the offence of grievous bodily harm materially contributed to these injuries - whether these injuries were more appropriately assessed by global assessment than an assessment in relation to each injury - where the applicant also suffered double vision which had resolved by the time of sentence - whether the respondent’s assault caused the applicant to suffer a recognised psychiatric illness or disorder constituting mental or nervous shock. 

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) (repealed), s 20, s 21, s 22, s 24, s 25, s 26, s 30, Schedule 1.

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) (repealed), s 2.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 105 (1), r 389 (2).

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 155 (1) (a), s 155 (2) (b).

AT v FG [2004] QCA…

Continue reading Parsons v Mitchell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Parsons v Mitchell [2013] QDC 57
Case
[2013] QDC 57
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parsons sought compensation from Mitchell under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) for injuries suffered as a result of an assault by Mitchell. The case was before the Supreme Court on an application to determine whether Parsons was entitled to compensation. The first issue before the court was whether the delivery of certain documents constituted a step in the action for the purposes of rule 105 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The court held that the delivery of these documents did not constitute a step in the action. The second issue was whether leave should be granted to Parsons to proceed. The court held that in the circumstances, leave should be granted.

The third issue was whether the offence of grievous bodily harm materially contributed to the injuries suffered by Parsons. The court found that the offence did materially contribute to the injuries. The fourth issue was whether these injuries were more appropriately assessed by global assessment than an assessment in relation to each injury. The court held that a global assessment was appropriate. The fifth issue was whether Parsons suffered a recognised psychiatric illness or disorder constituting mental or nervous shock as a result of the offence. The court found that Parsons did not suffer a recognised psychiatric illness or disorder. The court ordered Mitchell to pay Parsons $21,000 by way of compensation for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of grievous bodily harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $21, 000 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of grievous bodily harm, which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Brisbane on 10 June 2009.

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.