R v Pangilinan, ex parte Owens - [2001] QSC 391

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Pangilinan, ex parte Owens [2001] QSC 391

PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
JORAI SEVERO PANGILINAN
(respondent)
ex parte
HILTON OWENS
(applicant)

FILE NO: 8199 of 2001

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 19 October 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 17 September 2001

JUDGE: Helman J.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION ETC – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND - severe stab wound – some physical disability – substantial surgical scarring – mental sequelae – whether compensation for physical injury can be awarded under more than one item in Sch 1 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) - whether applicant entitled to compensation for both stab wound and scarring

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 25, s 26, Sch 1

Dooley v Ward [2000] QCA 493
R v Kazakoff, ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320

COUNSEL: A. J. Kimmins for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS: Tony Bailey for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

HELMAN J: This is an application, filed on 11 September 2001, for compensation for injury under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. On 14 June 2000, after a trial which resumed on 31 May 2000, the respondent was acquitted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to the applicant with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, but was found guilty on an alternative count of unlawfully doing him grievous bodily harm. For that offence I sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for six years, the sentence to be served concurrently with other sentences imposed that day for three offences against others (murder, and two offences of unlawfully wounding) of which he was found guilty at the same trial.

The charges against the respondent arose from an incident at a Brisbane nightclub, the Gig, on or about 1 February 1998 in which he stabbed with a knife a number of sailors of the United States Navy who were on shore liberty from the U.S.S. Blue Ridge, which was then in the port of Brisbane. The applicant, a petty officer second class born on 22 August 1970, was one of those sailors.

The respondent stabbed the applicant only once, in the neck region, but the injury he inflicted was life-threatening.

The applicant was admitted to the Royal Brisbane Hospital on 1 February 1998. He was found to have a bleeding laceration in the left lower neck region. He was resuscitated with blood and fluid intravenously, and, when his condition had become stable, an exploratory operation was performed. Persistent heavy bleeding was found to be coming from the depths of the wound. A median sternotomy was then performed to facilitate control of the injured vessels. Branches of the subclavian artery were ligated and the bleeding stopped. The wounds were closed but draining tubes were left in the chest. The applicant recovered after treatment with physiotherapy and mobilization, and was discharged on 9 February…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Pangilinan, ex parte Owens 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] QSC 391
Decision Date: 19 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a matter brought by Owens against Pangilinan, an individual who had inflicted severe injuries upon Owens through a stabbing incident. The primary dispute centred on the entitlement of Owens to compensation under the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining whether Owens could be compensated under multiple items in Schedule 1 of the Act, specifically for both the physical injury caused by the stab wound and the substantial surgical scarring that resulted from the incident.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether compensation for physical injury could be awarded under more than one item in Schedule 1 of the Act; and second, whether Owens was entitled to compensation for both the stab wound and the resulting scarring. The court needed to examine the statutory provisions and previous case law to ascertain the correct interpretation and application of the compensation provisions within the Act.

The court determined that the compensation provisions in the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) were to be construed in a manner that allowed for a comprehensive recovery of damages. It was held that the physical injury and the resulting scarring were distinct and separate harms for which compensation could be sought under the Act. The court emphasised the importance of providing full compensation for the injuries sustained by the victim, and found that Owens was entitled to compensation under both relevant items in Schedule 1 for the stab wound and the scarring. The court concluded that the legislative intent was to ensure that victims received appropriate compensation for all aspects of their injury.

The final orders of the court were that Owens was entitled to compensation for both the physical injury caused by the stab wound and the substantial surgical scarring. The court directed that the compensation claims be processed in accordance with the findings, ensuring that Owens received the full extent of compensation to which she was entitled under the provisions of the Act.

Orders