R v Beaton; Ex Parte - [1997] QSC 176

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

No. 3928 of 1997

[R v Beaton; ex parte Smee]

IN THE MATTER OF: THE QUEEN v ROBERT BEATON

AND:

IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 663B OF “THE CRIMINAL CODE” 1899

AND:

IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION BY KENNETH JOHN SMEE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - W C LEE J

DELIVERED: 1 October 1997

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL COMPENSATION - More than one injury - Only one compensable - Meaning of “prescribed amount” in s.663A of Criminal Code - Nervous shock - Bodily injury

COUNSEL:Mr A. Rafter for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Bruce S.Dulley, as town agent for Walker Pender Ipswich, for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

HEARING DATE: 8 September 1997

JUDGMENT - W.C. LEE J

Judgment delivered 1 October 1997

This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to s.663B of the Criminal Code of Queensland.
The respondent, who was served but did not appear, is currently serving a period of imprisonment of 10 years for the attempted murder of the applicant. The Public Trustee was also notified by letter dated 13 May 1997 and replied by letter dated 15 May 1997 indicating that the Public Trustee had relinquished control of the respondent’s estate on 12 September 1996.

The respondent was convicted of attempted murder of the applicant on 21 May 1996 after a trial conducted before me in Toowoomba. I am for that reason conversant with the facts of the case.
The applicant and respondent were near neighbours on acreage blocks on Main Greenswamp Road, Churchable. They had known each other for some three to four months before the attempted murder and there were some indications of friendship on both sides. Smee had recently sold a number of pieces of machinery to the respondent.
On the evening of Sunday 9 April 1995, the respondent drove over to the applicant’s home, and they each drank some beer. The applicant said at trial that the respondent then produced a receipt indicating that the applicant had paid for the machinery, which he asked the applicant to sign. The applicant said he refused to do so as no such payment had been made. Further unrelated conversation ensued.
The Crown case, which obviously was substantially accepted by the jury, was that both men went outside and returned, a number of times. The applicant said that eventually the respondent made to leave and the applicant went with him to his car. The respondent sat in the driver’s seat of his car and the applicant had his hand on the driver’s door as he farewelled him. The respondent pulled a sawn off shotgun wrapped in cloth from beneath his seat, unwrapped it, and without warning pointed it at the applicant in the chest area, and said “cop this, you cunt”. He then immediately discharged the rifle at the applicant, striking him in the lower abdomen region and also in the region of his right groin. The applicant had desperately…

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 v Beaton; Ex Parte

Details

AGLC: R v Beaton; Ex Parte [1997] QSC 176
Case: [1997] QSC 176
Decision Date: 1 October 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Kenneth John Smee, applied for criminal compensation against the respondent, Robert Beaton, who was serving a 10-year imprisonment sentence for the attempted murder of Smee. The case involved the interpretation of "prescribed amount" in s.663A of the Criminal Code and compensation for injuries including physical and psychological trauma. The court was required to determine whether the compensation should be limited to the statutory prescribed amount and if so, how to allocate the available funds between the different injuries.

The court found that the most severe injury was the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which was a recognised psychiatric illness. The court considered the applicant's predisposition to PTSD and depression due to a history of alcohol abuse and substance use, but noted that the gunshot wound precipitated the PTSD. Given the statutory cap of $20,000 for compensation of nervous shock and the remaining funds for other injuries, the court awarded the applicant $55,000 in total compensation. This amount was arrived at by awarding $20,000 for the nervous shock and $35,000 for the residual physical injuries, reflecting the severity of the applicant's conditions and the statutory limitations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $55,000 in compensation for the injuries inflicted and also to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs, to be taxed.

Orders