R v Brett Grant - [2000] QDC 444

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT CAIRNS

CIVIL JURISDICTION Application No. 21 of 1999

BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE BRADLEY

28 JANUARY, 2000
[2000] QDC 444

IN THE MATTER of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
and
IN THE MATTER of R v BRETT GRANT
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application for compensation by ANDREW ROBERT MAZLIN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Applicant seeks an order for compensation for injuries received at the hands of the Respondent. The Respondent was convicted in the District Court at Cairns on the 1 April 1998 of the offence of Unlawfully Wounding the Applicant at Mareeba on the 8 July 1997. The Respondent has been served with the Application and the supporting material, but did not appear and was not represented at the hearing of this Application.

Facts

The offence occurred at the Royal Hotel Mareeba where the Applicant had been drinking with his uncle and another man. It appears from the statements tendered that the Applicant and his companions were quite intoxicated and a disagreement developed between the Applicant and the Respondent, who was also in the bar at the time. This eventually resulted in a consensual fight between the two men, during which the Applicant appears to have come off second-best. The fight subsequently involved others in the bar including the Applicant’s uncle and his companion. After the men separated the Respondent went into the hotel toilets and when he came out he again approached the Applicant and his uncle, and was punched by them. The Respondent then drew a knife, stabbing the Applicant’s uncle in the chest and lacerating the Applicant’s arm.

Injuries

The Applicant went to the Mareeba Hospital where the following injuries were noted:

One 8cm laceration to left upper arm involving skin only;
Superficial 1cm laceration to left abdominal wall;
Laceration to left inner lip involving skin through to buccal mucosa;
Contusion to right upper lateral orbital margin.

The Applicant’s wounds were cleaned and the lacerations to his left arm and lip were sutured. He was given a Tetanus injection and discharged from hospital.

It would appear from the statements tendered in this Application that the last two injuries were received during the consensual fight which did not result in any charges against the Respondent, and I disregard those injuries.

Following the incident the Applicant was left with scarring to his left upper arm and his left lower rib area and says that he was not able to look for work for approximately one month after the incident because of his injury.

In his Victim Impact Statement the Applicant said that:

“during the time before the Police arrested the person who gave me these injuries I was constantly worried about meeting this person on the streets. I felt that he was capable of attempting to stab me or any person I was with again.

I am in a de-facto relationship and have two children through that relationship. I am concerned that there may be repercussions towards my family.”

Contribution

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 Brett Grant

Details

AGLC: R v Brett Grant [2000] QDC 444
Case: [2000] QDC 444
Decision Date: 28 January 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Andrew Robert Mazlin, sought compensation for injuries sustained at the hands of the Respondent, Brett Grant, following an incident in July 1997. The Respondent was convicted of the offence of unlawfully wounding the Applicant in April 1998. The matter before the court was an application for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The Respondent did not appear or participate in the proceedings.

The primary legal issues were whether the Applicant was entitled to compensation and, if so, the amount. The court considered the extent to which the Applicant’s own actions contributed to his injuries and the extent to which he was entitled to compensation. The court needed to determine the appropriate compensation amount based on the injuries and the statutory compensation table. The Applicant claimed that the injuries had a significant impact on his life, preventing him from working for a month and causing ongoing distress and concern for his family.

The court assessed the Applicant’s injuries and the extent of his contribution to the incident. It found that the Applicant’s actions did not contribute to his injuries and that the Respondent’s actions were unprovoked and inexcusable. The Applicant suffered a moderate 8cm laceration to his left upper arm and a minor laceration to his abdominal wall, resulting in scarring. The court awarded compensation for these injuries, totalling $11,250. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant $11,250 by way of compensation.

Orders