Rambold v Piening

[2011] QDC 225

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rambold v Piening [2011] QDC 225

PARTIES:

SHARON MAREE RAMBOLD
(Applicant)

V

WAYNE FOWLKES PIENING
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

139/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

9 September, 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

4 August 2011

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Wayne Fowlkes Piening pay the applicant Sharon Maree Rambold the sum of $53,250.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – Criminal Compensation – assault – assault occasioning bodily harm – grievous bodily harm – bruising/ laceration – loss of use of shoulder – neck/back/chest injury – mental or nervous shock

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss. 24, 25(7) and 40(1)

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s. 167(2)

CASES:

Paterson v Chand & Chand [2008] QDC 214

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436

COUNSEL:

Mr J.P. Mould (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

John Paul Mould Solicitors for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

1. The respondent, Wayne Fowkles Piening, pleaded guilty on 9 March, 2009 at the Beenleigh District Court (relevantly) to counts of common assault, assault occasioning bodily harm and grievous bodily harm in respect of the applicant, Sharon Maree Rambold. The respondent was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in respect of the common assault count, 12 months’ imprisonment in respect of the assault occasioning bodily harm count, and three years’ imprisonment in respect of the grievous bodily harm count.  The effective head sentence (relevant to other unrelated charges) was four and a half years’ imprisonment, suspended after 18 months’ jail, with an operational period of five years.[1]

   [1] Exhibit SMR-1 (sentencing remarks) pp. 1-11 – 1-12. Affidavit of Sharon Maree Rambold sworn 9 November 2009.

Facts

1. The Schedule of Facts tendered on the sentence[2] sets out the factual basis on which the respondent was sentenced, as follows:

   [2] Exhibit B affidavit of John-Paul Mould sworn 4 August 2011.

“[The applicant] lived in the unit next door to [the respondent] for about eight weeks.  At the time of the incident, [the applicant] had lived there with her four-and-a-half-year-old daughter since January 2007.

On the afternoon of Friday 3 August 2007, [the applicant] heard [the respondent] was home next door.  [The applicant] went next door to confront [the respondent] over the alleged theft of money by [the respondent’s] girlfriend.  [The applicant] knocked on the front door.  [The respondent] was sitting in the lounge room.  [The applicant] entered the house and confronted [the respondent].  She said that she needed to speak to [the respondent] about the fact that his girlfriend may have taken some money from her.  [The respondent] stood up, and walked towards [the applicant] in an intimidating manner.  [The respondent] then spat in [the applicant’s] face three times.

[The applicant] was frightened, she walked out of the unit.  [The respondent] then called to her and said, ‘Shazz, come back here and talk to me about this.’  [The applicant] then approached the screen door and…