R v Ward; ex parte Dooley

In the case of R v Ward; ex parte Dooley, the appellant, Ward, was ordered to pay compensation to the respondent, Dooley, for injuries sustained from an assault occasioning bodily harm. The dispute arose under the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, specifically concerning the interpretation of the compensation table and the meaning of "maximum amount of compensation." The matter was brought before the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues were whether the term "maximum amount of compensation" in section 22(4) of the Act referred to the scheme maximum or the highest percentage provided in the range for each type of injury, and whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the amount of compensation awarded. The respondent argued that the maximum amount should correspond to the highest percentage in the compensation table, while the appellant contended that it referred to the scheme maximum.

The Court of Appeal held that the term "maximum amount of compensation" referred to the scheme maximum rather than the highest percentage provided in the range for a particular type of injury. The court found that the trial judge had assessed the compensation amount correctly but had erred in the total compensation awarded, deeming it excessive. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the amount of compensation was reduced to $15,750.

The final order of the court was to allow the appeal with costs and to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent to $15,750. This decision clarified the interpretation of the compensation provisions in the Act and provided guidance on the application of the compensation table.