R.L.H v Curtis - [2001] QSC 137

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R.L.H v Curtis [2001] QSC 137

PARTIES: R.L.H
(applicant)
v
ALEXANDER CURTIS
(respondent)

FILE NO: S 361 of 2001

DIVISION: Trial Division

`

PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation

DELIVERED ON: 10 May 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 26 April 2001

JUDGE: Wilson J

ORDER: That the respondent pay the applicant $45,000.00 because of the injury she sustained when he indecently assaulted her on 17 January 1997.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – Application for compensation by victim of sexual offence – where victim aged 15 when offence committed – where victim suffered post traumatic stress disorder

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 19, s 20
Criminal Offence Victims Amendment Regulation (No 1) 1997 (Qld)

M.R. v Webb [2001] QCA 113, Appeal No 4166 of 2000, 27 March 2001, cited.
Sanderson v Kajewski [2000] QSC 270, 12 July 2000, considered.
Whyte v Robinson [2000] QCA 99, Appeal No 7292 of 1999, 28 March 2000, applied.

COUNSEL:
M.J. Eastwood for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS: Appleyard Lawyers for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

WILSON J: This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

The applicant was born on 5 March 1981. On 17 January 1997, when she was aged 15, she was indecently assaulted by the respondent, a man then aged 79 years. On 21 February 1998, he was found guilty by a jury of one count of indecent assault and one count of indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

The Criminal Offence Victims Act provides a scheme for the payment of compensation for injury caused by an indictable offence committed against the person of the applicant (s 19). “Injury” is defined in s 20 as bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table, which is a schedule to the Act, or prescribed under a regulation. Compensation is intended to assist the applicant, but not to reflect compensation to which he or she may be entitled under the common law or otherwise. The court may not award a total of more than the “scheme maximum”, which is $75,000.00. Various categories of injuries and degrees of severity are set out in the compensation table. With respect to each, there is a range, expressed as percentages of the scheme maximum, within which compensation may be awarded. The maximum amount is reserved for the most serious cases and the amounts provided in other cases are intended to be scaled according to their seriousness: see M.R v Webb [2000] QCA 113, Appeal No 4166 of 2000, 27 March 2001.

In the present case the applicant claims $75,000.00 which is the maximum which may be allowed under the head of compensation “the totality of the adverse impacts of a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R.L.H v Curtis

Details

AGLC: R.L.H v Curtis [2001] QSC 137
Case: [2001] QSC 137
Decision Date: 10 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R.L.H v Curtis involved an application by the victim for compensation under the provisions of the relevant legislation for the harm she suffered as a result of the respondent's criminal conduct. The victim, who was 15 years old at the time of the offence, suffered significant psychological trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of the indecent assault. The case was heard in a court in Queensland, which had the jurisdiction to hear the application for compensation under the applicable laws.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the victim was entitled to compensation for the psychological injury she sustained. The court needed to consider the provisions of the relevant legislation, which outlined the criteria for awarding compensation to victims of sexual offences. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the victim's injuries met the threshold for compensation and if the respondent was liable for the full amount of the award. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded, taking into account the severity and impact of the victim's injuries.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the victim was indeed entitled to compensation for the psychological injury she sustained. The court noted that the victim's post-traumatic stress disorder was a direct result of the respondent's criminal conduct and that the severity of her injuries warranted compensation. The court also determined that the respondent was liable for the full amount of the award, as he was the person who committed the offence. The court carefully considered the appropriate amount of compensation to award, taking into account the victim's age at the time of the offence, the severity of her injuries, and the impact of those injuries on her life. Ultimately, the court awarded the victim $45,000.00 in compensation.

In summary, the court held that the victim was entitled to compensation for the psychological injury she sustained as a result of the respondent's criminal conduct. The court found that the respondent was liable for the full amount of the award and carefully considered the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded, taking into account the relevant factors. The court ordered the respondent to pay the victim $45,000.00 in compensation for the injury she sustained.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent pay the applicant $45,000.00 because of the injury she sustained when he indecently assaulted her on 17 January 1997.

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.

CITATION:	R.L.H v Curtis [2001] QSC 137
PARTIES:	R.L.H (applicant) v ALEXANDER CURTIS (respondent)
FILE NO:	S 361 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial Division
`
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
DELIVERED ON:	10 May 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 April 2001
JUDGE:	Wilson J
ORDER:	That the respondent pay the applicant $45,000.00 because of the injury she sustained when he indecently assaulted her on 17 January 1997.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – Application for compensation by victim of sexual offence – where victim aged 15 when offence committed – where victim suffered post traumatic stress disorder Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 19, s 20 Criminal Offence Victims Amendment Regulation (No 1) 1997 (Qld) M.R. v Webb [2001] QCA 113, Appeal No 4166 of 2000, 27 March 2001, cited. Sanderson v Kajewski [2000] QSC 270, 12 July 2000, considered. Whyte v Robinson [2000] QCA 99, Appeal No 7292 of 1999, 28 March 2000, applied.
COUNSEL:	M.J. Eastwood for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Appleyard Lawyers for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf